Pollution by Oil December 2013

Prevention of
pollution by oil
A selection of articles previously
published by Gard AS
Gard AS, December 2013
2
3
Contents
Disclaimer
The information contained in this publication is compiled from material previously published by Gard AS and is
provided for general information purposes only. Whilst we have taken every care to ensure the accuracy and quality
of the information provided at the time of original publication, Gard AS can accept no responsibility in respect of any
loss or damage of any kind whatsoever which may arise from reliance on information contained in this publication
regardless of whether such information originates from Gard AS, its shareholders, correspondents or other
contributors.
Introduction 5
Shipping industry guidance on the use of Oily Water Separators Ensuring compliance with MARPOL 6
Clearing of shore pipelines following cargo operations at terminals 8
US Pollution - California Certicates of Financial Responsibility (COFR) Requirements 10
Australian Pollution Law Oil Pollution Indemnity Clause for Penalties and Fines 11
Limitation of liability for pollution clean-up costs in China 13
The silent sentinels Increased use of remote marine pollution sensors 15
New Greek marine pollution legislation 17
New wine from old wineskins? - Current efforts to retrieve oil from sunken vessels 19
Australia toughens pollution laws 21
New Pollution Regulations in China - FAQs II 22
Charterers pollution liability in Brazil 24
Perfecting pollution prevention? - The State of Washington enacts a new statute 26
The state of environmental crime enforcement in the US 27
US law Criminal prosecutions of MARPOL violations 32
ICS/ISF guidance on environmental compliance 34
Oil and water dont mix 35
Environmental Crime Myths and Reality 36
Oily water separation and discharge: Risk of oil pollution versus vessels safety 37
The ner points of oil pollution 40
US Coast Guard formal policy on voluntary disclosure of MARPOL violations 43
Oily water separator bypass in the US - The tables are turned 44
US law - MARPOL violations in the US 45
Environmental crime - Oily water discharge off the East Coast of Canada 46
Pollution - The hard line taken by the French criminal courts on oil discharge from ships 47
4
5
Introduction
This booklet contains a collection of
loss prevention material relating to the
prevention of pollution by oil, which
over the years has been published by
Gard.
Discharges of oil from shipping,
offshore extraction of oil, and transport
of oil in pipelines is the result of either
accidents or normal, deliberate
operational discharges. Accidental
discharges (oil spills) may occur when
vessels collide, are in some sort of
distress at sea (engine breakdown,
fire, explosion), run aground, or when
there is a blowout of an offshore oil
well, or when a pipeline breaks. Much
can be done to avoid accidents,
but there will always be unfortunate
circumstances and situations that give
rise to accidents. Operational (i.e. non-
casualty-related) discharges often arise
during routine bunkering operations
and are usually caused by negligence/
lack of care. Other operational
discharges, e.g. discharge of bilge
water, fuel oil sludge, tank washings
etc., are deliberate in the sense
that the discharge is intended (and
permitted by the relevant legislation),
however, because the amount of
pollutant contained in the discharged
liquid exceeds the permitted amount,
this results in the discharge being
performed negligently. Such discharges
can be avoided.
The most important regulations
governing the prevention of pollution
by oil from ships are contained in
the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL) Annex I and cover
prevention of pollution by oil from
operational measures as well as from
accidental discharges. With seaborne
oil trade growing steadily since 1970,
apart from a fall in the early 1980s
during the worldwide economic
recession, the aim of many of the safety
measures included in MARPOL Annex
I is to ensure that the majority of oil
tankers are safely built and operated,
and are constructed to reduce the
amount of oil spilled in the event of
an accident (e.g. segregated ballast
tanks, protected location of fuel tanks
and double hull). Although the greater
volume of the oil spilled can be linked
to tanker incidents, commercial vessels
other than tankers also contribute to
oil pollution and MARPOL Annex I
contains the required safety measures
to prevent and minimise also this type
of discharges (e.g. specific requirements
for discharge of oil residue (sludge) and
bilge water form machinery spaces).
Although all aspects related to the
prevention of pollution by oil are not
covered in this compilation, and local
authorities may have additional, and
sometimes stricter, requirements than
those contained in MARPOL Annex
I, this compilation will hopefully be a
useful aid in providing guidance, some
answers, or at the very least a pointer
in the right direction when it comes to
prevention of pollution by oil.
6
Shipping industry guidance
on the use of Oily Water
Separators Ensuring compliance
with MARPOL
Ensuring compliance with MARPOL
Shipping companies should:
Ensure that the ISM Safety
Management System* is used to
good effect
Conduct internal and external
audits on environmental
compliance and act upon the
findings, in full compliance with the
ISM Code
Require accountability on
environmental compliance issues
within the shore-side and shipboard
management team
Minimise waste leakage through
good housekeeping and
maintenance
Make the best use of the available
technology
Establish a realistic operating
budget for environmental
compliance
Provide meaningful and targeted
training in environmental awareness
and MARPOL compliance
Provide specific and targeted
training in oily water separator
(OWS) operation
Recognise the value of open
communication with the crew
Verify compliance through
appropriate physical inspection,
operational tests and document
analysis
Reward compliance and address
potential non-compliance.
Technical approaches
General
Shipping companies should consider:
Installing the latest equipment, or
an upgrade in capability, if existing
equipment does not perform to
requirements
Upgrading related equipment to
minimise the production of waste
The advantages of the pre-
processing of waste
Increasing tank capacity for waste
where possible
Modifying systems to facilitate in-
port testing of treatment systems
The global shipping industry is
committed to a zero tolerance
approach to any non-compliance with
the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL). In particular, the industry
is committed to strict adherence to
International Maritime Organization
(IMO) requirements concerning the
use of Oily Water Separators and the
monitoring and discharge of oil into the
sea.
National maritime authorities with
responsibility for the environmental
protection of their coastlines quite
properly adopt a similarly strict approach
to the enforcement of MARPOL.
Companies and seafarers need to
understand that even the most minor
violations of MARPOL will be detected
by the authorities. In addition to large
fi nes amounting to literally millions of
dollars, both company management
and seafarers can be liable to criminal
prosecution and imprisonment for
any deliberate violation of MARPOL
requirements or falsifi cation of records.
The following industry guidelines
are intended to highlight some of
the issues concerning the use of oily
water separators (OWS) and to remind
company management, and shipboard
personnel, how they can act to prevent
MARPOL infringements.
Ship operators have ultimate
responsibility for establishing a
compliance culture within their
companies, and it is important that every
effort is made to ensure that seafarers
do not engage in any illegal conduct in
the mistaken belief that it will benefit
their employer. Every seafarer should
be made fully aware of the severe legal
consequences, both for the company and
the seafarers themselves, of even minor
non-compliance with environmental rules.
At first glance, the following advice
may appear to contain nothing new;
for the vast majority of shipping
companies, these are issues which
should already be fully addressed by
their Safety Management Systems, as
required by the International Safety
Management (ISM) Code. Nevertheless,
it is strongly recommended that the
following guidance is carefully analysed
by company management, and that a
firm message of zero tolerance of non-
compliance with MARPOL is circulated
as widely as possible amongst seagoing
personnel.
Implementing the periodic testing
of the oil discharge monitoring
equipment
The use of cleaning agents
consistent with equipment
capability.
Control devices
Shipping companies should consider:
Fitting uniquely numbered
environmental tags on flanges to
prevent unauthorised by-passing
Using seals on overboard valves
and cross-connections
Installing strategically placed
placards concerning compliance
with MARPOL on board ship
Fitting surveillance cameras
Using tamper resistant recording
systems, alarms and printouts
to verify equipment operation,
valve position, flow, OWS ppm,
incineration, ships position etc.
Installing locked boxes or cages
over monitoring equipment
Fitting interlocks to prevent
falsification of monitoring
equipment inputs
Using meters to record equipment
running time for all engine room
pumps.
Management approaches
Role of shore management
Assign environmental responsibility
to senior management and ship
superintendents, Masters and Chief
Engineers on board ships
Ensure adequacy of internal audits
and implementation of corrective
actions
Review maintenance records
and procedures, log entries and
handover notes
Monitor workloads imposed by the
operation and maintenance of oily
water separators, and assess the
impact on crew priorities
Analyse waste streams to
determine content, volume, means
and capacity for storage, and
estimate realistically the cost of
treatment and disposal
7
Ensure that the operating budget
for waste removal and spare parts is
adequate
Establish comprehensive check lists
for inspections/audits
Verify that tests have been
performed to ensure the continued
correct operation of oily water
separators
Discuss findings and concerns
with all levels of the engineering
department
Explore the potential gains from
the installation of new technology.
Training
Ensure that training, whether
shipboard, in-house or from an
outside authority, is specific on
relevant MARPOL requirements
Consider supplementary training
on MARPOL issues
Document the training and assess
its relevance
Establish formal policy documents
and procedures on MARPOL
compliance and training.
Audits and inspections
Ensure that audits target the correct
operation and maintenance of oily
water separators
Ensure that audits are designed
to investigate environmental
compliance
Use a comprehensive audit check
list and try to investigate beyond
the check list
Conduct unannounced inspections
Verify:
- routine maintenance
- internal record keeping policies
- the accuracy of records by cross-
referencing
- the progress of training
- that written policies are available
Test equipment under routine
operational conditions
Interview crew members
Produce written audit reports
Conduct post-audit meetings
Ensure senior management review
the audit reports
Track audit findings until corrective
action is complete.
The role of senior management on
board the ship
General
The Master, Chief Engineer and senior
officers in the engine department should:
Promote awareness that
any attempt to circumvent
MARPOL requirements is totally
unacceptable
Determine the most appropriate
procedures to maintain equipment
and systems
Minimise and if possible
eliminate leakage through good
housekeeping
Correctly maintain the oil record
book (ORB) and the record of
discharges of oily water separator
effluent into the sea
Ensure that all routine shipboard
and ISM safety meetings include
time to discuss a specific agenda
item on environmental matters
Use sign on/off check lists for duty
personnel.
Use of Oily Water Separators
Instruct users of OWS equipment
and verify the standard achieved
Verify that maintenance schedules
are being followed
Ensure that audits include
operational tests and a
reconciliation of records
Ensure that scheduled tank
sounding logs are maintained and
signed for
Keep records of verification of
correct operation through testing at
sea
Ensure that on board spares are
adequate to meet the demand
Create a culture where
complacency in operation
and maintenance standards is
unacceptable.
Record keeping
Ensure that all entries in the tank
sounding log, ORB (oil record
book
) and incinerator logs are

completed by the crew member
who performed the task
Ensure that the ORB is examined
and signed by the Chief Engineer
and/or the Master
Require signatures from those
conducting overboard discharges
and operational tests
Ensure that ship familiarisation
procedures verify that company
environmental policy and
operability of equipment are
understood and followed
Require the status of pollution
prevention equipment to be
recorded in the handover notes of
the responsible engineer and the
Chief Engineer
Record the independent
verification of the correct operation
of the oil discharge monitoring
equipment
Raise awareness of the need for
an open chain of command and
accurate record keeping that can
be substantiated with Port State
Control.
Tracking waste and maintenance
Conduct analyses of waste disposal
records
Compare waste output to volumes
purchased
Compare waste disposal records
with maintenance records
Remove disincentives to off-loading
waste, or purchasing additional
material or parts related to safety
and the environment.
The following publications may also be
helpful:
*Guidelines on the Application of the
IMO International Safety Management
(ISM) Code (published by ICS/ISF)
Guide for Correct Entries in the Oil
Record Book (published by Intertanko).
Shipping industry guidance on the use of
Oily Water Separators
Published by Maritime International
Secretariat Services Limited
12 Carthusian Street
London EC1M 6EZ
Tel +44 20 7417 8844
publications@marisec.org www.marisec.
org/ows
First edition 2006
These guidelines have been developed
using the best information available,
but they are intended for guidance only,
to be used at the users own risk. No
responsibility is accepted by any firm,
corporation or organisation who or which
has been in any way concerned with
the furnishing of data, the compilation,
publication or authorised translation,
supply or sale of this guidance, for the
accuracy of any information or advice
given herein, or any omission herefrom
or consequences whatsoever resulting
directly or indirectly from use of these
guidelines or from compliance with or
adoption of guidance contained therein.
An electronic version of this leaflet is
available at
www.marisec.org/ows
8
Clearing of shore
pipelines following cargo
operations at terminals
Introduction and background
Over the years, Gard has seen some
extensive structural damage incidents
as a result of overpressure in the
liquid cargo tanks during loading
operations. Such damages result in
time consuming and costly repairs and
unfortunately, for reasons unknown,
the frequency of such incidents has
increased, despite ship procedures
addressing the risks involved.
In Gards experience such incidents
often occur during the loading
operation phase when shore pipelines
are being cleared, either by line
blowing or by pigging
1
. In one such
incident, failure to maintain close
communication with the terminal and
a lack of ship personnels attention
to and awareness of the hazards
related to an unattended open
manifold valve during shore pipeline
clearing operations seem to be the
main causes. After the completion of
loading of one tank and initial clearing
of the line, the terminal requested the
re-opening of the manifold valve for
further blowing of the cargo line. The
line was then left open and the ship
reportedly did not receive any further
information from the terminal. Some
ve hours after the request for the
re-opening of the manifold valve, a
bang was heard on deck and cargo
was seen emitting from the tank vent.
The results were signicant damage to
the transverse bulkheads between the
tanks and cargo mixing between tanks.
The purpose of this circular is therefore
to highlight the main issues involved in
order to minimize the risk of pollution
and damage to the cargo tanks during
cargo operations involving clearing of
shore pipelines.
Reducing risks related to shore pipeline
clearing operations The immediate
causes of any damage are gas being
supplied at a too high pressure
compared to the capacity of the ships
tank vent system arrangement; or that
the amount of cargo being pushed
into the ships cargo tank is too large
compared to the tank ullage available,
or the cargo coming at too fast a
rate. The root causes are, however,
often complex and may involve lack
of detailed planning of the overall
operation, lack of communication
between the parties involved during the
operation, and personnel having a lack
of training and awareness of procedures
applicable to the actual operation.
The procedure for clearing shore
pipelines between the shore tank and
the ship manifold will depend on the
facilities available at each terminal and
the type of cargo loaded. Ship and
terminal procedures will address all
relevant aspects of the cargo and line
clearing operations but it has become
Hazards to be aware of Parameters to be discussed in pre-cargo operation meeting:
- pressure surges in line
- tank overpressurization
- dramatic increase in the filling rate
- cargo tank overflow due to excess cargo
- cargo tank overflow due to entry of
compressed gas
- stages at which the line clearing will be carried out
- notice period required by the ship prior to line clearing operations
- propelling medium to be used
- length and size of the shore line
- time required for a pig to travel along the line
- pressures and venting capacity of the ships reception tank
- volume of residual cargo in the line and the amount of ullage space
available in the ships reception tank
- capacity of the vapour return line to shore
- amendments to the cargo operation plan as a result of pipeline clearing
operations, including volumes available for topping off
- communication routines during the entire operation
Loss Prevention Circular No. 08-11
evident that enforcement of good
communication between the involved
parties prior to and during the entire
operation is a key factor in order to
prevent incidents. The following should
therefore be observed:
Planning and responsibilities
All cargo operations must be carefully
planned and documented well in
advance of their execution. The details
of the plans must be discussed with
all personnel, both on the ship and at
the terminal and the manner in which
responsibility is to be shared between
the ship and terminal must be agreed
2
.
The Master or Responsible Ofcer
should ensure that ships personnel
assigned duties during the cargo
operation are made aware of the
hazards associated with pipeline
clearing operations.
A pre-cargo operation meeting
between personnel responsible for
the operation from ship and terminal
should conrm all critical interface
parameters, including those important
in the pipeline clearing operations
3
.
9
Specic hazards that the ships
personnel should be aware of and
related interface parameters to be
discussed with the terminal during the
pre-cargo operation meeting are listed
below.
Precautions and procedures
At the commencement of loading, and
at each change of watch or shift, the
Responsible Ofcer and the Terminal
Representative should each conrm
that the communications system for
the control of loading is understood by
them and by the personnel assigned
duties during the cargo operation.
Precautions and procedures requiring
special awareness by the ships
personnel are presented below.
During the operations, there should be
continuous and direct communication
between the terminal and the ship until
the operation has been completed and
all valves have been closed.
Recommendations
Procedures for cargo operations
should be reviewed to ensure that the
correct procedures are followed when
dealing with shore pipeline clearing
operations. A key issue in order to
prevent incidents is the enforcement of
good communication, both prior to and
during the entire operation.
Precautions and procedures requiring special awareness by the ships personnel:

- avoid using tanks that that are loaded close to 98% as reception tanks for line clearing
- add a safety margin when estimating required ullages for reception tanks, this to take account of
the potential for inaccurately declared pigging quantities
- consider to include provisions for a standby cargo tank to be lined up and ready to be opened
- keep manifold valves closed during idle periods
- ensure that the vapour return line to shore is open during the operation (when available)
- throttle the main manifold valve as required
- monitor the manifold pressure closely
- monitor the available amount of cargo tank ullage space and pressure in tank
- during freezing weather conditions, inspect tank vents (P/V valves) at regular intervals
- close manifold valves immediately (in agreement with the terminal) once a pig has reached its
receiver/trap, this to avoid compressed propelling gas entering a loaded cargo tank
- report immediately any abnormalities or deviations from existing procedures
- Hazards to be aware of: Prior to the
commencement of the cargo operation,
and in order to raise awareness,
specic hazards associated with
pipeline clearing operations should be
communicated to the ships personnel
who are assigned duties during the
operation.
- Parameters to be discussed in the
pre-cargo operation meeting: Through
the pre-cargo operation meeting, the
responsibilities, time frames and critical
interface parameters, including those
important for line clearing operations,
should be agreed between the
Responsible Ofcer and the Terminal
Responsible. Specic communication
routines to be adhered to during
the actual operations should be
established.
- Precautions and procedures
requiring special awareness by the
ships personnel: Precautions and
procedures during cargo operations
should ensure that all ship manifold
valves are kept closed unless specic
operations that require open valves
are ongoing, that each operation is
continuously monitored by responsible
personnel, and that there is direct
communication between the terminal
and the ship until operations have been
completed and all valves have been
closed.
Gard strongly recommends that only
properly trained and experienced
personnel is assigned duties related
to operation of ship manifold valves
during pipeline clearing operations.
Footnotes
1 Pigging is a form of line clearing in
which an object, most often in the form
of a rubber sphere or cylinder and
known as a pig, is pushed through
the line by a liquid or by compressed
gas. A pig may be used to clear the line
completely, in which case it will usually
be propelled by compressed gas, or to
follow a previous grade to ensure that
the pipeline remains as free of product
as possible, in which case it is likely to
be propelled by the next grade.
2 Gards Guidance to Masters
Ch.2.12.3.4 could be useful reading in
this respect.
3 See also Ch.11.1.15 of the
International Safety Guide for Oil Tanker
and Terminals (ISGOTT) 5th Edition.
10
US Pollution - California
Certificates of Financial
Responsibility (COFR)
Requirements
Member Circular No. 3/2013
March 2013
Members are requested to note the
relevant provisions in the CA Code
of Regulations (CCR) on evidence
of financial security and renewal
procedures for CA certificates of
financial responsibility (COFRs)
published by the Californian (CA)
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
(OSPR) and currently effective.
Before operating in CA marine waters,
tank and non-tank vessels are required
to submit their certificate of entry (CoE)
at least ten (10) calendar days prior to
operating or entering these waters,
in order to apply for a CA COFR.
This requirement supersedes the
requirement to submit the CoE at least
three (3) working days prior to entering
CA waters.
Members are also advised that the
thirty (30) and ninety (90) day timeframe
required for self-certifying renewal with
the P&I Club and the timeframe for
providing the renewal documentation,
i.e. the CoE are replaced with a single
timeframe of forty-five (45) calendar
days following expiration of the P&I
Club coverage to submit all necessary
documentation including the CoE.
Members should contact the Manager/
Association should they have any
queries regarding any of the above.
This circular supersedes the Circular
issued in January 2012 No 16-11.
All Clubs in the International Group of
P&I Clubs have issued similar circulars.
Any questions with regard to the above
may be addressed to Sara Burgess,
Gard (UK) Limited; Knut Goderstad,
Gard AS or Frank Gonynor, Gard (North
America) Inc.
****
Yours faithfully,
GARD AS
Claes Isacson
Chief Executive Officer
11
Australian Pollution
Law Oil Pollution
Indemnity Clause for
Penalties and Fines
Member Circular No. 2/2013
March 2013
In October 2012, an International Group
recommended charterparty clause was
drafted to address the concerns raised
by owners and charterers in respect
of the amendments to Australian
legislation introducing increased
penalties for pollution from ships and
damage to the Marine environment.
Since the recommended clause was
circulated to Members, there have
been further developments in relation
to the Australian legislation and further
consideration of the wording of the
recommended clause, which has
been updated as attached and further
explained below;
Increase in the amount of
penalties
On 28 December 2012, a new
regulation came into force in Australia
escalating the monetary value of
financial penalties for Federal offences.
The increase in penalty unit valuations is
only applicable to offences committed
on or after 28 December 2012.
The changes affect fines calculated on
penalty units, such as fines imposed
under the Protection of the Sea Act
1983, which imposes fines ranging from
500 penalty units to 20,000 penalty units
for the offence of discharging oil or oily
mixtures into the sea.
Under the previous penalty unit
calculation, this resulted in maximum
fines of AUD 2.2 million for an individual
and AUD 11 million for a corporation.
Under the new penalty unit calculation,
the applicable maximum fines are now
AUD 3.4 million for an individual and
AUD 17 million for a corporation.
Amendments to the International
Group recommended clause and
explanatory notes
Legal/Defence costs
A new subparagraph (b) iii. has been
inserted to address the concerns
that prosecution legal costs and/or
expenses might be passed onto the
defending party. Subparagraph (b)
iii. clarifies that the indemnity in the
recommended clause extends to the
recovery of any reasonable legal costs
and/or other expenses incurred by or
awarded against either party in respect
of any proceedings instituted against
them for the imposition of any fine
or other penalty, in circumstances set
out in subparagraph (b), irrespective
of whether any fine or other penalty is
actually imposed.
Indemnity in the event of contributory
fault
The proviso to subparagraphs (b) i. and
ii. has been amended to specifically
address the consequences of liability
arising in circumstances where there
is contributory fault on the part of
the party seeking indemnity. The
amendment restricts the amount of the
recovery where there is contributory
fault, provided this is not prohibited
under the law governing the charter
party.
The recommended clause and
explanatory notes are attached.
This Circular supersedes Member
Circular No. 10-12 issued on 23 October
2012.
Should Members have any questions
they should contact the Managers in
the normal way.
All Clubs in the International Group of
P&I Clubs have issued similar circulars.
Any questions with regard to the above
may be addressed to Helenka Leary in
Gard (UK) Limited and Arne Stra in
Gard AS.
Yours faithfully,
GARD AS
Claes Isacson
Chief Executive Officer

ANNEX
OIL POLLUTION INDEMNITY CLAUSE
FOR PENALTIES AND FINES
(a) Subject to the terms of this
Charterparty, as between Owners
and Charterers, in the event of an
oil pollution incident involving any
discharge or threat of discharge of
oil, oily mixture, or oily residue from
the Vessel (the Pollution Incident),
Owners shall have sole responsibility for
responding to the Pollution Incident as
may be required of the vessel interests
by applicable law or regulation.
(b) Without prejudice to the above, as
between the parties it is hereby agreed
that:
i. Owners shall indemnify, defend and
hold Charterers harmless in respect
of any liability for criminal fine or civil
penalty arising out of or in connection
with a Pollution Incident, to the extent
that such Pollution Incident results from
a negligent act or omission, or breach
of this Charterparty by Owners, their
servants or agents,
ii. Charterers shall indemnify, defend
and hold Owners harmless in respect
of any liability for criminal fine or civil
penalty arising out of or in connection
with a Pollution Incident, to the extent
that such Pollution Incident results from
a negligent act or omission, or breach
of this Charterparty by Charterers, their
servants or agents,
provided always that if such fine or
penalty has been imposed by reason
wholly or partly of any fault of the party
seeking the indemnity, the amount
of the indemnity shall be limited
accordingly and further provided that
the law governing the Charterparty
does not prohibit recovery of such fines.
iii. The rights of Owners and Charterers
under this clause shall extend to
and include an indemnity in respect
of any reasonable legal costs and/
or other expenses incurred by or
awarded against them in respect of any
proceedings instituted against them
for the imposition of any fine or other
penalty in circumstances set out in
12
paragraph (b), irrespective of whether
any fine or other penalty is actually
imposed.
(c) Nothing in this Clause shall prejudice
any right of recourse of either party, or
any defences or right to limit liability
under any applicable law.
(d) Charterers shall procure that this
Clause be incorporated into all sub-
charters and contracts of carriage
issued pursuant to this Charterparty.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
It is understood that, under the revised
Australian law, charterers can be strictly
liable for penalties and fines imposed
on them as a result of a pollution
or threat of pollution caused by the
act or negligence of the owner (e.g.
navigational error). Conversely, owners
can be strictly liable for penalties and
fines imposed on them as a result
of a pollution or threat of pollution
caused by the act or negligence of the
charterer (e.g. unsafe berth). As this
involves circumstances beyond owners
and charterers control, a charterparty
clause is recommended to achieve the
effect that whoever causes the Pollution
Incident should bear the criminal fines
or penalties through indemnification.
Under the clause, owners have
overall responsibility for responding
to a discharge or threat of discharge
of oil, oily mixture or oily residue
(subparagraph (a)). This is in line with
the Australian legislation and with the
international compensation regime.
The indemnity in subparagraphs (b) i.
and ii. is designed to protect owners
and charterers by incorporating an
equal indemnity by the party whose
negligent act or omission, or breach
of chartererparty, causes pollution or
threat of pollution.
The proviso to subparagraphs (b) (i)
and (ii) ensures that club cover is not
prejudiced on the grounds that liability
has been contractually assumed by
virtue of the clause in circumstances
where there may not be an underlying
legal liability. The proviso restricts the
amount of recovery where there is
contributory fault. The recovery of fines
under the clause is also subject to such
recovery not being prohibited under
the law governing the charterparty.
The indemnity in this clause extends
to the recovery of any reasonable legal
costs and/or other expenses incurred
by or awarded against either party in
respect of any proceedings instituted
against them for the imposition of any
fine or other penalty in circumstances
set out in subparagraph (b,) irrespective
of whether any fine or other penalty is
actually imposed.
The indemnity in this clause will not
respond to the situation where the
pollution or threat of pollution is
entirely caused by a third partys act,
without involving any act of the owner
or of the charterer, but where the owner
or charterer still incurs the penalty or
fine under the new Australian law.
The clause only addresses the specific
situation of criminal fines and civil
penalties, not civil liability which is
within the sphere of the Conventions.
Any right of recourse of either party,
defence or right to limit is preserved
under subparagraph (c).
Subparagraph (d) is designed to ensure
that the same recovery and indemnity
provisions apply where there is a
charterparty chain.
13
Limitation of liability for
pollution clean-up costs
in China
Gard News 211, August/
October 2013
In the recent case of Jiangmen
Maritime Safety Administration of
PRC v. the Owners of M/V ZEUS
the Supreme Court of the Peoples
Republic of China (PRC) held that the
costs incurred in cleaning up bunkers
spilled from a vessel which is sunk,
wrecked, stranded or abandoned shall
not be subject to limitation of liability
in accordance with Article 207 of the
Chinese Maritime Code (CMC). The
facts of the case are as follows.
Facts
On 24th September 2008, Typhoon
Hagupit caused the M/V ZEUS to
run aground off Shangchuan Island,
Guangdong, China. As a result, the
bunkers on board spilled from the
vessel and caused oil pollution. All the
crew members died or went missing.
After the incident, the Jiangmen
Maritime Safety Administration (MSA
Jiangmen) sent various local fishing
boats and vessels from other MSAs to
conduct the clean-up operations. The
final clean-up costs incurred were more
than RMB 10 million (around USD 1.63
million).
On 21st October 2008, the owners
of the ZEUS applied to Guangzhou
Maritime Court (GMC) for constitution
of a limitation fund (in the amount of
SDR 796,256, around USD 1.22 million)
for the maritime claims arising from the
said accident, including the claim for
the clean-up costs.
MSA Jiangmen raised objection to the
constitution of the limitation fund by
the owners but the GMC dismissed
this objection. MSA Jiangmen then
registered the clean-up claim under the
limitation fund and filed a claim with the
GMC for the total clean-up costs.
About 40 local aquatic breeders also
registered their claims for loss of
income under the limitation fund. Later,
these local aquatic breeders filed claims
before the GMC.
Regarding the wreck and bunkers
remaining on-board the vessel, the
owners entered into a wreck and bunker
removal contract with a local company.
The wreck/bunker removal fee was paid
as per the contract.
There were also claims for search and
rescue fees, and costs for setting up
navigation warning equipment. These
claims were settled amicably outside
the court proceedings.
The claim for clean-up costs in the
court of first instance (GMC)
The owners main arguments
In the first instance trial, the owners
argued that the clean-up costs should
be subject to the limitation provided for
under Article 207 of the CMC.
Article 207 of the CMC states that
except as provided otherwise in Articles
208 and 209 of the CMC,
1
with respect
to the following maritime claims, the
person liable may limit his liability in
accordance with the CMC, whatever the
basis of liability may be:
(1)Claims in respect of loss of life or
personal injury or loss of or damage to
property including damage to harbour
works, basins and waterways and aids
to navigation occurring on board or in
direct connection with the operation
of the ship or with salvage operations,
as well as consequential damages
resulting therefrom; []
(4) Claims of a person other than the
person liable in respect of measures
taken to avert or minimise loss for which
the person liable may limit his liability
in accordance with the provisions of
this Chapter, and further loss caused by
such measures.
All the claims set out in the preceding
paragraph, whatever the way they are
lodged, may be entitled to limitation
of liability. However, with respect to the
remuneration set out in sub-paragraph
(4) for which the person liable pays
as agreed upon in the contract, in
relation to the obligation for payment,
the person liable may not invoke the
provisions on limitation of liability of this
Article.
The owners argued that Article 207 (4)
should be applicable, since the owners
signed no contracts with the parties
participating in the clean-up operations.
In addition, Article 207 (1) could also be
applied.

The owners also cited various judicial
interpretations and judicial guidances
to demonstrate that the limitation
under the CMC should be applicable to
this case.
MSA Jiangmens main arguments
MSA Jiangmen argued that Chinese law
does not have specific provision for this
particular claim, so it should either not
be subject to limitation or be subject to
limitation under the CLC 92.
In addition, MSA Jiangmen argued that,
although they signed various contracts
with clean-up vessels and vehicles, MSA
Jiangmen should be deemed to have
entered these contracts on behalf of the
owners. Since the fee rate was agreed
in these contracts, the owners should
not have the right to limit liability.
MSA Jiangmen also referred to Article 9
of the Provisions of the Supreme Court
on Several Issues Concerning the Trial
of Ship Collision Cases, effective from
23rd May 2008 (the 2008 Provisions),
2

and argued that the pollution in
this case was not different from the
pollution caused by a ship which is
sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned
resulting from a ship collision accident
in terms of its nature and consequence.
Article 9 of the 2008 Provisions provides
that for claims in respect of the re-
floating, removal, destruction or the
rendering harmless of a ship which is
sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned
due to the collision, as well as the
cargo on board, the responsible party
should not be able to limit its liability in
accordance with the CMC.
MSA Jiangmens reasons for applying
the CLC 92 to the ZEUS (a non-tank
vessel) are as follows:
The 2001 Bunker Convention should
not have retrospective application,
as the convention came into force in
March 2009 and the incident occurred
in 2008.
Even if the 2001 Bunker Convention
could be applicable, the convention
itself did not state which should be
the limitation amount or whether this
particular claim should be subject to
limitation of liability or not. According
14
to Article 6 of the convention, an
answer should be found under Chinese
law.
MSA Jiangmen did not think that
the CMC limitation of liability could be
applied to this case based upon the
above arguments.
Hence, the only limitation the owners
could refer to under Chinese law would
be that of the CLC 92. As the limitation
amount under the CLC 92 is much
higher than that of the CMC and actual
clean-up costs, this limitation is in fact
meaningless for the owners.
The GMCs decision
The GMC upheld the arguments
of MSA Jiangmen and ruled that
the matter should not be subject to
limitation of liability under the CMC.
The GMC also thought it would be
unfair if the owners were allowed to
limit their liability in spite of the fact
that owners did nothing in the clean-up
operations (there was no doubt that if
the owners had done something, like
appointing clean-up companies or staff,
they would not be able to limit liability).
Comments on the GMCs judgment
Chinese law does not state that in
this case MSA Jiangmen had the
right or authorisation to sign clean-
up contracts on behalf of the owners.
Since the right of an administrative
bureau (such as MSA Jiangmen) should
expressly be provided in law, the
GMCs decision in this respect may be
incorrect. In addition, the owners had
no information about these contracts
before the litigation.
The nature of clean-up operations and
rendering harmless of a ship should of
course be different. In fact, in this case,
in order to render the wrecked ship
harmless (i.e., disposing of the bunker
remaining on board and the wreck
itself), the owners had already entered
a contract with a local company and
appointed it to carry out the bunker
and wreck removal work.
Fairness should not be an issue in
this dispute. The GMC should have
followed the CMC and correctly
interpreted it.
The appeal to Guangdong High
Court
The above comments were added
to the statement of appeal filed at
the Guangdong High Court (GHC),
in addition to the main arguments
raised by the owners during the GMCs
proceeding. Unfortunately, the GHC
did not overturn the GMCs judgment
and held almost the same opinions as
those of the GMC.
China: the practical implications of the
ZEUS decision remain to be seen.
The Supreme Court
Shortly after the GHC issued its
decision, a judgment was issued by
Qingdao Maritime Court (QMC). In
that case, Yantai Maritime Safety
Administration (MSA Yantai) organised
clean-up operations by sending vessels
(as per agreed fee rate) to take part in
an oil clean-up after a collision incident
(which resulted in a vessel sinking
and spilling oil). Similarly, the owners
established a limitation fund in the
QMC and MSA Yantai claimed against
the owners for the clean-up costs. The
QMC determined that the clean-up
costs should be subject to limitation
under the CMC. Although China does
not adopt the doctrine of judicial
precedent, the owners of the ZEUS
added this decision to their arguments
when appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, while deciding that
the clean-up costs in the ZEUS case
should not be subject to limitation of
liability under the CMC, overturned the
GMCs and GHCs findings that MSA
Jiangmen could enter into clean-up
contracts on behalf of the owners.
The Supreme Court in fact formed a
new theory to apply Article 9 of the
2008 Provisions to this case. The
Supreme Courts logic analysis goes as
follows:
As per Article 9 of the 2008 Provisions,
the claims in respect of the re-floating,
removal, destruction or rendering
harmless of a ship which is sunk,
wrecked, stranded or abandoned
or claims in respect of the removal,
destruction or rendering harmless of
the cargo on board the ship should not
be subject to limitation under the CMC.
In the ZEUS case, although the
bunkers spilled from the vessel (or the
wreck), it should still be considered as a
part of the wreck.
Therefore, cleaning the spilled
bunkers should be deemed as
rendering harmless of the wreck and
the owners should not be able to enjoy
limitation of liability under the CMC.
The Supreme Court obviously took a
step forward by widening the definition
of a wreck.
Conclusion
The ZEUS is an interesting decision of
the Supreme Court on an issue that had
not been considered by it previously.
It now remains to be seen how the
lower courts will apply the principles
established in the judgment and what
implications there will be in practice to
future pollution incidents in China.

Footnotes
1 Article 208 mainly refers to other
kinds of limitation or claims not subject
to limitation, such as the limitation
under the CLC 92 and claim for general
average contribution. Article 209
mentions that a party will lose the
right to limit liability if he committed
gross negligence or wilful misconduct.
Articles 208 and 209 have no relevance
to this case.
2 Article 2 of the 1976 LLMC states that
subject to Articles 3 and 4 the following
claims, whatever the basis of liability
may be, shall be subject to limitation of
liability:
(a) claims in respect of loss of life or
personal injury or loss of or damage to
property (including damage to harbour
works, basins and waterways and aids
to navigation), occurring on board or in
direct connection with the operation of
the ship or with salvage operations, and
consequential loss resulting therefrom;
(b) claims in respect of loss resulting
from delay in the carriage by sea of
cargo, passengers or their luggage;
(c) claims in respect of other loss
resulting from infringement of rights
other than contractual rights, occurring
in direct connection with the operation
of the ship or salvage operations;
(d) claims in respect of the raising,
removal, destruction or the rendering
harmless of a ship which is sunk,
wrecked, stranded or abandoned,
including anything that is or has been
on board such ship;
(e) claims in respect of the removal,
destruction or the rendering harmless
of the cargo of the ship;
(f) claims of a person other than the
person liable in respect of measures
taken in order to avert or minimise
loss for which the person liable may
limit his liability in accordance with this
Convention, and further loss caused by
such measures.
The CMC applies most of the 1976
LLMC. Unfortunately, (d) and (e) are
not included in Article 207 of the CMC
(dealing with which kind of claims could
be limited under the CMC), so the CMC
only has four items under Article 207. At
first, there were a lot of disputes over
whether the claims of (d) and (e) should
be limitable under the CMC. Then,
the Supreme Court issued the judicial
interpretation in 2008, which expressly
stated that the rendering harmless
costs could not be subject to limitation
of liability under the CMC. What the
Supreme Court did in the ZEUS case
was simply to widen the definition of
what constitutes a wreck.
15
The silent sentinels
Increased use of remote
marine pollution sensors

Gard News 210, May/July 2013
In this era of increased vigilance in the
detection of marine pollution, there
have been various efforts by both
government and industry to ensure
detection of hydrocarbon spills, as well
as to enhance spill response. This has
included the use of varied technologies,
including aerial detection of floating
oil, use of infrared/ultraviolet cameras
to allow for spill detection at night,
the increase in sophistication of oily
water separators aboard ships, and
the matching of spilled pollutant
to the point of source through the
employment of precise chemical
fingerprinting of samples in a
laboratory.
The further mechanisation and
automation of these efforts has been
a driver of this theme. One recent
example in major spill events has
been the use of small drone aircraft
and watercraft,1 and even satellites,
all of which can survey large areas of
ocean and shoreline continually, for
many hours or even days, controlled
remotely by an operator, at a distance
on the ground at a control centre,
viewing things via an audio/video
telecommunication link.
Remote sensors
A more recent development, which
focuses on spill detection at more
localised areas, is the now more
widespread use of remote pollution
sensors that offer continuous
monitoring for pollution at a fixed
point. These weatherproof units use
optical sensors aimed downward at
a patch of water within a small radius
of the unit. Within the sensors, a high
power Xenon lamp is used to produce
a high-energy light beam which will
cause any oil present in the target
area to fluoresce and emit light of its
characteristic wavelengths.
The cameras can detect extremely
minute quantities of hydrocarbons (+/-
3 microns in thickness) floating upon, or
even slightly below, the surface of the
water within the range of the unit, in a
radius up to 10 metres from the device.

Slick Guard environmental
monitoring platform for offshore,
coastal, ports and harbour applications.
All photos courtesy of InterOcean
Systems Inc., San Diego.
Once a pollutant is detected there
may be an alarm, either visual or a
klaxon, and transmission of a report
about the detection to ship crew
or dock personnel, either nearby or
hundreds/thousands of miles away,
via text message, e-mail, or voice
message, using one or more modes
of telecommunication radio, data or
phone line, mobile phone, Wi-Fi or
satellite.
Implications
The implications of this technology
are far-reaching. Incidents of pollution
in a restricted area, e.g., the side of
a ship or dock, a marina or harbour
area, the deck of a ship or facility,
can be immediately detected and
then instantaneously reported to
local personnel, who can rush to the
scene and verify the situation, or sent
to supervisory personnel across the
planet. This can occur day or night,
on a 24-hour basis, in any weather
or setting. These units can even be
fitted with flotation, and be deployed
like buoys, in both inshore waters and
offshore settings. The sensitivity of the
units can be adjusted, so that alerts are
only sent for higher concentrations of
hydrocarbons, or kept highly sensitive.
The use of non-contact optical scanning
technology means the unit keeps clean
and requires little maintenance. The
camera settings can be set up so that,
if an attempt is made to cover the lens,
an alarm will be transmitted, to thwart
vandalism or deliberate masking of an
ongoing pollution, and if fitted with a
video camera, the identity of persons
trying to interfere with the device can
be detected.
These devices could greatly enhance
the detection of pollution incidents in
port areas, as well as aboard ships and
offshore facilities. They can also be
placed in remote locations where it is
impractical to have persons on watch,
particularly at night. Such devices never
grow tired, do not miss things, and
always report timely. The cost of the
devices, when amortised over time, are
far lower than having workers observing
an area on a continuous basis, freeing
such workers to perform more critical
functions.
It also allows a redundancy of spill
detection efforts, avoiding gaps in
observations of a particular area. It
allows shore-side managerial staff,
at long distances from a dock, ship
or facility, to be aware of pollution
events quickly, gain valuable time in
activating response plans, and ask
a verification that personnel on the
scene are detecting spills and acting
appropriately after they are spotted.
By getting the very early detection that
these devices offer, pollution response
can be instituted more quickly and it
is clear that the earlier one can respond
to a pollution event, the greater the
odds for a more contained, less serious
situation.

16
Typical mounting platform for harbour
and terminal pier applications.

Example of a loading pier.

Limitations
Of course, no technology is perfect,
and these devices can have limitations.
The units themselves could break,
or power interruptions could impair
their function (although such units
might be fitted with batteries/solar
panels to allow for this contingency).
A telecommunications issue could
prevent the news of a pollution event
from being transmitted to a remote
recipient.
Also, it must be said that some workers
might resent the presence of an
automated spy in their workplace,
and in the case of a spill caused by
human error, might attempt to block
detection by the unit with some form of
tampering or interference.
The units can only detect hydrocarbon
pollutants in highly localised zones.
This could mean that in the case of
a non-hydrocarbon pollutant being
emitted, the device would fail to report
it. Or, if a large amount of pollution
occurred, but for some reason did not
flow or float within the range of the
devices camera, that, too, would go
unreported.
Conclusion
All in all, the increase in use of these
sophisticated silent sentinels means
that the gaps in detection of pollution
in specific docks, terminals, ships,
marinas, offshore facilities or other
particular areas could be narrowed to
almost nil, making for higher detection
rates and increased number of reported
incidents, eventually leading to a
cleaner environment.
Footnotes
1 See article No place to hide The
expansion of remote surveillance of
shipping activity in Gard News issue
No. 206, May/July 2012.
17
New Greek marine
pollution legislation
October 2012
Law 4037/2012 has recently been
passed in Greece, implementing
Directive 2005/35 EC (on ship-source
pollution and on the introduction of
penalties for infringements) and Council
Framework Decision 2005/667JHA.
Scope of application
Law 4037/2012 deals with the
discharge by ocean-going vessels of
the substances referred to in Annex
I and II of MARPOL (oil and noxious
liquid substances) in the following
geographical areas:
- internal waters and the territorial sea
of any EU member state;
- straits used for navigation subject
to the regime of transit passage over
which any EU member state exercises
jurisdiction;
- the exclusive economic zone of any
EU member state;
- the high seas.
Violations
Any discharge, wilful or not, operational
or accidental, is considered an
infringement of the law and results in
the imposition of penalties, except if
it is permissible under the following
MARPOL Regulations:
- 15 of Annex I, regulating operational
discharges of oil or oily mixtures from
any ship;
- 34 of Annex I, regulating discharge of
oil or oily mixtures from the cargo tanks
of a tanker; and
- 13 of Annex II, regulating the
discharge of noxious liquid substances.
Exceptions
Article 4 of the new law incorporates
part of the exceptions of MARPOL.
Specifically, the discharge of oil or liquid
noxious substances is not considered
an infringement if it was necessary for
the purpose of securing the safety of
the ship or saving life at sea, or when
a discharge is being done with the
approval of the administration (both flag
and territory, if any) for the purpose of
combating pollution (Regulations 4.1, 4.3
of Annex I and 3.1.1, 3.1.3 of Annex II).
For all of the above areas, except
internal and territorial seas of an EU
member state, a discharge is not
considered an infringement if it was
caused due to damage to the ship or
her equipment, provided all reasonable
precautions have been taken after the
occurrence of the damage, or discovery
of the discharge, for the purpose of
preventing or minimising the discharge,
and under the condition that the owner
or Master did not act with intent to
cause the damage, or recklessly and
with the knowledge that the damage
would probably result (Regulations 4.2
of Annex I and 3.1.2 of Annex II).
From the above it would appear that
accidental pollution in internal waters
or territorial sea of an EU member state
is not exempted, contrary to MARPOL
Regulations.
Criminal penalties
Law 4037/2012 provides severe
penalties of imprisonment and fines
not only to crew members but also to
any other person that has contributed
to a punishable discharge, either
wilfully or by gross negligence, without
exempting accidental pollution (as
provided in MARPOL).
The court may impose the criminal
penalties (reduced as per the provisions
of the Greek Penal Code) against any
person whatsoever, in addition to the
actual perpetrator or accomplice, who
may have contributed in any way in
the wilful or negligent discharges that
are punishable. This may result in the
possibility of indictment of any person
from the ship management office (such
as directors or DPA), the charterers,
cargo owners, etc.
The new law established criminal
penalties in the case of wilful discharges
as follows: a) Imprisonment from five
to 10 years and pecuniary penalty from
EUR 3,000 to EUR 300,000, in cases of
significant pollution that caused risk
to human life, or risk of severe bodily
damage, or of wide environmental
disturbance or disaster;
b) Imprisonment from one to five
years and pecuniary penalty from EUR
1,500 to EUR 50,000 in all other single
pollution incidents; and
c) Imprisonment from six months to five
years and pecuniary penalty between
EUR 1,000 to EUR 15,000 in case of
repeated minor discharges which in
conjunction result in the deterioration in
the quality of sea water.
The new law established criminal
penalties in the case of discharges due
to gross negligence or recklessness as
follows:
a) Imprisonment from six months to
five years and pecuniary penalty from
EUR 1,000 to EUR 15,000, in cases of
significant pollution that causes risk
to human life, or risk of severe bodily
damage, or of wide environmental
disturbance or disaster;
b) Imprisonment from three months to
five years and pecuniary penalty from
EUR 200 to EUR 3,000 in all other single
pollution incidents and also in case of
repeated minor discharges which in
conjunction result in the deterioration in
the quality of sea water.
However, if the party responsible for
a negligent discharge significantly
minimises the pollution or contributes
to that effect by promptly notifying the
authorities, the above penalties may be
reduced or even dismissed altogether.
Discharges caused by simple
negligence (i.e., not gross negligence
or recklessness) are not punishable
under Law 4037/2012.
It should be noted that the above
penalties of imprisonment are provided
by Law 4037/2012 irrespective of the
geographical place of the discharge
and of the flag of the offending
vessel, which seems to contradict the
provisions of Article 230 of UNCLOS
(United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea of 1982) providing
that monetary penalties may only be
imposed with respect to violations
of national laws and regulations, or
applicable international rules and
standards for the prevention, reduction
and control of pollution of the marine
environment, committed by foreign-
flagged vessels, except in case of
a wilful and serious act of pollution
committed within the territorial sea of a
member state.
Administrative fine
In addition to the above criminal
penalties, an administrative fine of up
to EUR 60,000 may be imposed. In case
of a serious incident the fine may vary
from EUR 60,000 to EUR 1,200,000. The
authorities may prohibit the sailing of
the liable vessel until the fine is paid
18
or until the submission of a letter of
guarantee from a bank operating in
Greece.
Liability of legal entities
Legal entities may face a fine of up to
EUR 500,000 for any of the offences,
which are punishable under the law,
committed for their benefit:
- by any person acting, either
individually or as part of a body of
the legal entity, who has power of
representation or the authority to take
decisions for the legal entity, or an
authority to exercise control within such
legal entity; or
- by any person under the control of
the legal entity when the offence was
committed due to lack of supervision
by any of the persons of the legal entity
who have power of representation,
authority of decision making and
exercise of control.
Entry into force
The law came into force on 30th
January 2012.
Conclusion
Law 4037/2012 provides severe
penalties of imprisonment not only
to crew members but also to any
other person that has contributed
to a punishable discharge, thereby
increasing criminalisation of the
shipping industry and conflicting with
Article 230 of UNCLOS 1982 as regards
to foreign-flagged vessels.
According to Greek precedents,
European Union legislation (and
implementing laws) prevails over
any sub-constitutional legislation.
Therefore, if a case were brought
before a Greek court chances are that
the provisions of Law 4037/2012 would
be found to prevail over the provisions
of MARPOL and UNCLOS mentioned
above.
We are grateful to KGDI Law Firm,
Kyriakides Georgopoulos & Daniolos
Issaias, Greece, for the above
information.
19
New wine from old
wineskins? - Current
efforts to retrieve oil
from sunken vessels
October 2012
When a ship sinks one of the main
concerns is whether it contains oil and
whether that oil should be removed.
For thousands of years vessels have
sunk to the bottom of the sea, the
result of man-made events - collision,
grounding, explosion, acts of war or
piracy - or the forces of nature, in the
form of storms and other consequences
of inclement weather. In that time,
sunken ships might have attracted
some attention -from salvors or treasure
hunters, or authorities if they posed a
hazard to navigation. But for the most
part, they took on a status of anonymity
in perpetuity.
However, with the advent of ships that
carry oil and other liquid substances,
either as cargo or fuel, this permanent
dwelling in obscurity has changed to
one of sometimes notoriety. This is
because such cargoes can and will leak
out from the wrecked ships, floating
upwards and causing pollution, both
to the seas above and eventually to
nearby coastal areas.
This phenomenon has been
accelerated due to a single man-made
activity: naval warfare. During both
the First and Second World Wars,
thousands of vessels were sunk during
hostilities. After peacetime returned,
the pace of sinkings abated, but never
ceased completely.
With the increase in shipping activity
world-wide, even with lower rates
of sinking incidents, the number of
sunken wrecks that emitted, or were
capable of emitting, petroleum or other
liquids grew, along with that of ships
that contained solid cargoes of a toxic
nature that, if exposed to seawater,
could create poisonous solutions
equally or potentially more damaging.
What are the figures involved?
- A study in 2005, performed by
Environmental Research Consulting
(www.environmental-research.com),
indicated that on a world-wide basis,
there were a total of 8,569 sunken ships
of various types that were leaking, or
capable of leaking, oil or other liquid
substances, in a range of at least 747
million gallons, and perhaps as much as
six billion gallons.
- The US National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA,
www.noaa.gov) estimates that near the
United States coastal areas there are
400 sunken tank ships and barges and
1,300 other vessels >400 grt in size that
contain 180 million gallons of oil and
are in a position to threaten pollution to
coastal areas.
- In 2007, Swedish researchers
conducted a study of wrecks in
the Skagerrak area, and found 261
wrecks that were in such a state as
to be potential leakers of oil or other
hazardous substances.1
- In 2008, ITOPF stated that one out of
five cases of ship casualties it was asked
to attend involved a sunken wreck and
the potential need for removal of the
oil from it.
Legal regimes
These factual circumstances point out
that the risk of pollution from sunken
ships bears significant potential
environmental damage. However,
the applicable legal regimes have,
thus far, given only an incomplete
response to this issue. Sinkings in
various jurisdictions have resulted
in the triggering of a wide variety of
domestic laws ordering removal of
the oil from such sunken ships, the
most well-known recent examples
being the PRESTIGE and the ERIKA
off Spain and France, and the COSTA
CONCORDIA, on the Italian coast. On
the international level, some incidents
have seen the International Oil
Pollution Compensation (IOPC) Funds
funding the removal of oil under CLC
(Convention on Civil Liability for Oil
Pollution Damage) regimes, such as the
SOLAR 1 case in the Philippines in 2006.
Currently, it is safe to say that whenever
a ship sinks in the sea or wrecks upon
a shoreline, one of the prime concerns
is the question of whether the vessel
contains significant quantities of oil,
and if so, whether that oil should
be removed. However, the Nairobi
International Convention on the
Removal of Wrecks, adopted by the
IMO in 2007 to address the issue of oil
in sunken ships, thus far has only been
ratified by four nations, so its ability to
address this issue in the future is far
from a certainty.
Technology
While there may be some lag in legal
regimes keeping up with this issue,
the technology for removal of oil from
sunken ships has developed fully in
response. Various salvage companies
and sub-sea technology firms have
developed various methods and
specialised equipment that can remove
oil from sunken ships, even if they
lay on the seabed at depths of 1,000
metres or more. Most methods rely
in one way or another on a technique
called hot tapping. This involves the
placement of equipment that is affixed
to the outer hull of the ship and can
drill through the hull plating without
leaking the contents, pumping into
ship tanks water with solvent chemicals
that pushes the oil contents into outlet
piping, which carries the oil to the
surface to be collected. This operation
is enabled through the employment
of remotely-operated submarine
vehicles (ROVs), subsurface tool sleds,
ship tank volume sensors and other
marine technologies, many of which
were developed in connection with the
offshore energy industry.
Challenges
The various sunken ships offer many
challenges to recovery, not only from
deep depths, but also from inaccessible
positioning, coverage with silt and
sediment, and dispersal of the oil in
numerous locations in the ship itself.
In addition, there can be other sorts of
impediments posed, due to the history
of a particular wreck. With many of
these ships having met their fate in
wartime, it is a tragic fact that many
wrecks contain human remains of those
crew and passengers who perished
with the ship when it sank. That fact
alone poses a sensitive social issue as
to the ability to carry out oil recovery
operations in an efficient manner, with
many local governments and authorities
deciding against such activities, which
might be viewed as acts of desecration
of a de facto burial site. Such is not
always the case, however, when a
wreck poses significant environmental
20
problems for nearby activities, such
as fishing and aquaculture. That was
the case with the wreck of the ROYAL
OAK, a British warship sunk by a
German U-boat in the Scapa Flow area
of Scotland in 1939. For many years,
it remained deliberately undisturbed,
as a memorial. But when it began to
leak large quantities of oil that affected
nearby salmon farms, the decision was
to engage a company to carry out a
hot tapping operation, and almost all
of the oil from the ship was successfully
removed.
The major limiting factor in the
removal of oil from sunken ships can
be summarised in one word - money.
Such operations are not only difficult,
but they are extremely expensive, many
times running in the tens of millions of
dollars. With the number of eligible
sunken ships around, there are simply
not enough funds from governmental
and private sources to enable oil to be
removed from even a large fraction of
these wrecks.
Thus, a complex set of factors must
be considered in order to determine
whether a particular sunken ship clearly
needs immediate remedy, using the
limited funds available for such projects.
Various nations, as well as the IOPC,
have developed sets of criteria and a
process for evaluation. One of the most
complete is shown in Graph 1 below,
developed by Environmental Research
Consulting for NOAA, for its Wreck Oil
Removal Project, known as WORP.
By taking into consideration numerous
potential risks, a decision can be
Graph 1. Courtesy of Environmental Research Consulting.
logically reached as to the eligibility of
a particular site of a sunken ship, and
action then taken.
Conclusion
The days of straightforward wreck
removal are long over. Even if the
wreckage of the ship itself cannot be
retrieved or disposed of by a salvor,
the issue of what the ship contains and
its possible removal is a separate and
significant question that arises in almost
every case of a vessel sinking.
The fact that a ship disappears beneath
the seas surface does not mean that it
can be forgotten.
Footnotes
1 Hassellv, I-M., 2007. Pre-Study
of Ship Wreck Assessment and
Remediation. Alliance for Global
Sustainability, Gothenburg, Sweden
21
Australia toughens
pollution laws
As reported previously in Gard
News,
1
there has been a number
of significant and highly publicised
pollution incidents in Australian
waters in recent years, such as the
one in March 2009 involving the Hong
Kong registered general cargo ship
PACIFIC ADVENTURER and the one in
April 2010 involving the Chinese bulk
carrier SHEN NENG. As a result the
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
(AMSA) undertook a review of the
legislation and the Maritime Legislation
Amendment Act 2011 came into force
on 4th-6th December 2011.
The Act represents the first steps
taken by the Federal Government
to implement the shipping industry
reform package announced by Minister
Albanese in September 2011. The
Act amends the Navigation Act and
Protection of the Sea Act and creates
new offences for oil pollution from ships
and widens the scope of liability to
include a wider range of liable parties. It
also significantly increases the penalties
from pollution offences.
Amendments to the Protection of
the Sea Act
The purpose of the amendments to the
Protection of the Sea Act is to make the
regulation more consistent with other
Commonwealth and state legislation
such as the regulatory regime that
applies in the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park. The main changes to the Act are:
- The liability is extended to include
charterers, probably time, voyage and
demise charterers, as well as master and
owners of ships for offences involving
discharge of oil, an oily mixture or an
oily residue from a ship into Australias
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The
master is personally liable and may face
criminal proceedings. The defences
available under the Act, such as
discharge for the purpose of securing
the safety of the ship or saving life
at sea, have been extended to cover
charterers.
- Penalties have been significantly
increased. A maximum fine for a
corporation has increased from AUD
1.1 million to AUD 11 million and
from AUD 220,000 to AUD 2.2 million
for an individual.
2
Furthermore, the
amendments will bring the offence
provisions in line with the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Act, which provides
for penalties of up to 20,000 penalty
units per year in comparison with the
earlier 2,000 penalty units per year.
Amendments to the Navigation Act
The Navigation Act is an important
piece of legislation regulating a
wide range of marine matters which
primarily include ship safety and marine
environment protection. However, the
Act is old and has now been recast in
plain language and simplified to reflect
current drafting standards. The main
changes of the Act are:
- The master of a ship must ensure that
the ship is not operated in a negligent
or reckless manner that causes pollution
or damage to the marine environment
in Australian waters or in waters of
the high seas outside Australia. The
penalties are significant particularly
where the contraventions have caused
or had the potential to cause serious
harm to the marine environment. If a
corporation is found guilty of an offence
it may be liable for fines up to AUD 3.3
million. The maximum penalty for a
master who is found in breach of such
provisions is AUD 666,000.
- Amendments also require mandatory
reporting by the master of a ship in
relation to the movement of the ship
in prescribed areas, such as the Great
Barrier Reef. If the master fails to report
in a mandatory way he will be strictly
and personally liable for the damage,
meaning that the masters state of
mind or degree of fault is not needed
to be proved and criminal liability
can be imposed on the master. The
prosecution is not required to prove
intention, knowledge, recklessness
or negligence. In addition to criminal
prosecution, the court may now make
a civil penalty order, which imposes
large fines.
Conclusion
The amendments under the Maritime
Legislation Amendment Act 2011
are of high importance and increase
the risk exposure for individuals and
companies, especially charterers,
who operate within Australian waters.
Penalties have significantly increased
(both civil and criminal) and the liability
is extended to also include charterers.
Furthermore, strict liability is imposed
on masters to report movement of ships
in prescribed areas and, according
to the amendments, the master of a
ship has an obligation to ensure that
a ship is not operating in a reckless or
negligent manner.
At last, there are further bills that have
been released/will be released shortly.
The Federal government is aiming to
have all shipping reform legislation in
force by 1st July 2012.
Footnotes
1 See article Australia - Tougher
penalties for Queensland environmental
offences in Gard News issue No. 202.
2 AUD 1 = USD 1.06 in February 2012.
22
New Pollution Regulations
in China - FAQs II
Gard News 204, November
2011/January 2012
The article New Pollution Regulations
in China - FAQs, published in Gard
News issue No. 197, contained answers
to frequently asked questions (FAQs)
about the Regulations of the Peoples
Republic of China on the Prevention
and Control of Marine Pollution from
Ships (the main Regulations) which
were effective on 1st March 2010. Since
the first FAQs, further implementing
legislation, rules and interpretation
have been issued to give effect to the
main Regulations and in relation to
the handling of disputes in a pollution
incident. This article contains a new set
of FAQs to update Gard News readers
on the developments.
Updates
Are there any further legislation and
updates following Gard News first
FAQs?Yes. Various implementing
legislation, rules and interpretation
have been issued since then, providing
further explanation and detailed rules
to implement and supplement the
main Regulations. The table below
provides an at-a-glance chart setting
out the major legislation, rules and
interpretation.
The above table provides an at-a-
glance chart setting out the major
legislation, rules and interpretation.
Pollution liability
Who is liable for pollution damage?
The previous FAQs discussed who is
liable for pollution damage, defences
and limit of liability as provided
under the main Regulations. On
pollution liability, the Supreme Courts
Interpretation (Article 3) gives further
guidance that if the oil pollution is
caused by oil leakage from two or
more ships and if the claimants request
the leaking ships to compensate,
each shipowner shall be individually
responsible for the damages which
can be reasonably apportioned to his
particular ship. If the damages can
not be reasonably apportioned, the
shipowners shall bear joint liability
subject to any applicable defences and
exemptions.
Will Club LOU be accepted as security
in a pollution incident?
The new legislation has not changed
the existing position. It is still the case
that only guarantees/undertakings from
local recognised financial institutions/
insurance companies will be accepted
by the MSA (Maritime Safety Agency)
and the maritime courts as security
for pollution liability, with very few
exceptions. It is possible, however, to
negotiate with claimants to provide a
Club LOU or other alternative forms of
security if they agree to that.
Pollution clean-up contract
When do I need to sign the clean-up
contract?
Readers may recall from the previous
FAQs that the operators of (a) any ship
carrying polluting and hazardous liquid
cargoes in bulk or (b) any other vessel
above 10,000 GT is required under the
main Regulations to sign a pollution
clean-up contract with an approved
pollution response company prior to
the vessels operations or entry into/
departure from Chinese ports. The
enforcement date of this requirement
has now been postponed to 1st January
2012.
Those who trade regularly into the PRC
are recommended to sign the pollution
clean-up contract before 1st January
2012, otherwise they will be subject
to administrative penalties and other
measures.
Who should sign the clean-up contract?
Under the main Regulations, the
operator of the ship should sign the
pollution clean-up contract. Operator
has now been defined in the MSA
Detailed Rules as the owner, manager
or actual operator of a ship . In respect
of those operators not domiciled in
China, it is understood that the ships
agent in port, Club correspondent, local
law firm or another legal entity located
in mainland China (not Hong Kong or
Macau) may sign the contract on behalf
of the operator if authorised by the
operator to do so. It is understood that
the Master may also sign the contract,
which may be necessary in certain
circumstances, for example where there
is urgency, although an authorisation
would still be necessary for the Master
to sign on behalf of the operator. The
International Group of P&I Clubs (IG)
is considering the development of a
standard form authorisation letter for
overseas operators for this purpose.
Who are the approved clean-up
contractors?
Approved clean-up contractors will be
categorised by the MSA in accordance
with their qualifications and response
capabilities and will be assigned 1, 2, 3
or 4 status.
Operators will need to contract with
an approved clean-up contractor in
accordance with the size, type and
intended operation of the ship as set
out in the MOT ( Ministry of Transport)
23
Emergency Response Regulations and
MSA Detailed Rules.
1
It is understood
that the list of all approved contractors
will be issued in October 2011 on the
dedicated MSA website at www.osp.cn.
As mentioned above, the requirement
to contract with an approved clean-
up contractor will be enforced in all
Chinese ports from 1st January 2012.
There will therefore be a relatively short
period of time for operators to contract
with approved clean-up contractors.
What will be the content of the
clean-up contract?
On 20th May 2011 the MSA published
a Sample Agreement, which is in both
English and Chinese, together with an
introduction to the agreement. The
introduction states that the articles
of the agreement on rights and
obligations are mandatory and the
parties can not amend them, whilst for
matters not covered in the agreement
the parties may enter a supplementary
agreement Members are recommended
not to sign any clean-up contract
until the list of approved clean-up
contractors is issued and their contracts
reviewed to see whether they conform
with IG guidelines on vessel response
contracts. The IG is currently reviewing
the Sample Agreement and will provide
further guidance after the review. The
IG will also consider the development
of supplemental clauses for inclusion in
the Sample Agreement.
Sludge disposal contract
Is the oil clean-up contract requirement
the same as the sludge disposal
contract requirement?
No, they are different. The requirement
in relation to disposal and discharge of
ships garbage, residue water waste, oil
waste and sludge is set out in the MOT
Operational/Sludge Regulations which
came into effect on 1st February 2011.
Owners/operators of all vessels are
required to discharge all waste residues
(primarily sludge) at least once at a
PRC port, and are required to contract
with a registered service provider of
such services.Shipowners/operators
should check with their local agents
and the local MSA websites to ascertain
the updated lists of such registered
service providers for each Chinese port.
The websites of the MSA head office
and their major branch offices are the
following:
MSA head office:
http://www.msa.gov.cn/

Shanghai MSA:
http://www.shmsa.gov.cn/

Liaoning MSA:
http://www.lnmsa.gov.cn/
Hebei MSA:
http://www.hebeimsa.gov.cn/
Shandong MSA:
http://www.sdmsa.gov.cn/
Jiangsu MSA:
http://www.jsmsa.gov.cn/
Zhejiang MSA:
http://www.zjmsa.gov.cn/
Fujian MSA:
http://www.fjmsa.gov.cn/
Guangdong MSA:
http://www.gdmsa.gov.cn/
Guangxi MSA:
http://www.gxmsa.gov.cn/
Hainan MSA:
http://www.hnmsa.gov.cn/
Shenzhen MSA:
http://www.szmsa.gov.cn/
Changjiang MSA:
http://www.cjmsa.gov.cn/
Heilongjiang MSA:
http://www.hljmsa.gov.cn/
Ship Oil Pollution Compensation
Fund
Are the details of the Ship Oil Pollution
Compensation Fund available now?
The detailed rules as to the collection
and administration of the funds have
not been released but there is currently
a draft on this.
Further questions
Whom should I contact if I have further
queries?
Any further enquiries canbe sent to
sara.burgess@gard.no or catherine.
wong@gard.no.
Footnotes
1 Readers should refer to Gard Circular
No. 4/2011 for details.
24
Charterers pollution
liability in Brazil
Gard News 204, November 2011/
January 2012
Pollution liability fines and pollution
damage compensation claims brought
by governmental agencies are an
increasingly costly potential liability for
vessel owners, and are often difficult
to defend, as in most cases they are
imposed as strict liability (i.e., there
is no requirement to show fault on the
part of the defendant). It is sometimes
the case that where owners have been
held liable for such incidents, they are
subsequently able to recover these
losses from the vessels time or voyage
charterers in the form of contractual
claims under the charterparty. It is
almost unheard of, however, that such
charterers may be held directly liable
for pollution fines or penalties by
government agencies, as most legal
systems focus on the vessel owner
as the party primarily liable for such
incidents. Brazil seems to be a notable
exception to this rule.
Charterers exposure - the
international norm
In most jurisdictions, a vessels charterer
(whether bareboat, time or voyage
charterer) is not exposed to direct
liability for government bodies fines or
compensation claims in the event of a
pollution incident originating from the
chartered vessel, as the international
compensation regimes to which most
countries subscribe (Civil Liability and
Fund Conventions, Hazardous and
Noxious Substances Convention)
1

impose primary liability solely on the
owner of a vessel and the owners
insurer. This is in line with the generally-
accepted polluter pays principle
which underlies liability for marine
pollution incidents.
The notable exception is the United
States, where federal law and certain
states laws can be interpreted to
permit bareboat charterers to be
held directly and strictly liable for
statutory pollution-related fines or
compensation. This is because the
operative statutes define either vessel
operators or demise charterers, both
of which are interpreted to include
bareboat charterers. However, even in
the US it is generally accepted that time
and voyage charterers are not capable
of being held directly liable as the
definitions clearly do not include them
as being persons who exercise control
over or bear responsibility for a vessels
day-to-day operations.
However, Brazil is one jurisdiction with
laws which operate as an exception to
the generally accepted international
position, in that both time and voyage
charterers can be held directly and
strictly liable for pollution incidents,
alongside shipowners and bareboat
charterers.
Brazilian legal framework for
pollution liability
Brazilian law is a codified legal system
and identifies three distinct spheres
of law within which liability may be
established. These spheres are each
separate and independent from one
another and empower different state
agencies. They are the administrative,
civil and criminal law spheres. This
article will not consider the criminal law
sphere, as in practice criminal liability
for pollution incidents is not commonly
imposed on shipping interests in Brazil.
Administrative law
Liability under administrative law is
regulated by Federal Laws 9.605 of
1998 and 9.966 of 2000. These laws,
which are enforced by the Brazilian
Navy, apply to vessels, platforms
and offshore support installations
and provide for fines of up to BRL
50,000,000 per incident, as well as more
severe penalties such as the suspension
or prohibition of activities of the vessel
responsible for the pollution. Although
this is a form of strict liability, in order
for liability to attach it must be shown
that there was a causal connection
between the pollution and an act or
omission of the party concerned. This
requirement for a causal connection
is the main reason why administrative
penalties are unlikely to be successfully
imposed on time or voyage charterers,
notwithstanding occasional attempts
to do so. Accordingly, this sphere is
not the most problematic for time or
voyage charterers.
Civil law
Civil liability is governed by Federal Law
6.938 of 1981. Legal measures in this
sphere are pursued by the Federal and
State Public Attorneys. This is a much
more rigorous regime, in which time
and voyage charterers are exposed to
direct liability.
Penalties are not based on punitive
principles, but are intended to
recognise and enforce a duty to
compensate the State for damage
caused to the environment, and to
compensate third parties for damage
to their assets, adverse effects on their
activities, and for economic losses
flowing from the pollution incident.
As under administrative law, liability
under this statute is not dependent
on fault. Unlike administrative law,
however, there is no requirement for
a causal connection between a partys
conduct and the pollution damage.
The test which determines whether
any particular party has a duty to
compensate for environmental damage
is to ask whether the party was involved
in and benefited from the economic
activity which caused the pollution.
2

This is a very wide test.
By applying the test it is immediately
obvious that time and voyage
charterers, and potentially cargo
interest, can be held to have a duty to
compensate for environmental damage
caused by pollution from a chartered
ship operating in Brazilian waters.
Charterers are also jointly and severally
liable with owners, as well as a number
of other potential parties.
Gard has recently been notified of a
compensation claim against a charterer
member for a bunker spill from the
chartered vessel during operations in a
Brazilian port. Other than to resist the
application of the test mentioned above
and to dispute that the chartered vessel
was the source of the pollution, there
is very little which can be argued by
charterers in defence of this type of claim.
Recourse and risks for foreign
charterers
The situation is not entirely gloomy
for charterers who have no control
over a ships day-to-day operations
but find themselves subject to a duty
to compensate the Brazilian State for
pollution damage.
25
Firstly, charterers liability is joint and
several with owners. In most cases
owners will respond proactively to
such claims, as their vessel is directly
at risk of enforcement procedures and
therefore they have the most to lose.
Secondly, the law does not prohibit a
recourse action against other parties.
Such recourse may be a contractual
claim between charterers and owners,
or an action against third parties whose
conduct may have been the cause of
the pollution (for example, in the cases
of negligent tug operations, uncharted
or unmarked obstacles within port
approaches for which port authorities
are responsible). Such recourse is
possible once the penalty imposed
has been satisfied by the charterer.
Charterers are encouraged to review
the terms of their charter agreements
relating to risk allocation for pollution
liabilities when giving instructions for
vessels to call at Brazilian ports.
Thirdly, as a matter of practice
charterers who are Brazilian entities
or who have a registered presence in
Brazil are more likely to find themselves
subject to civil liability claims than
those who do not. This is simply due
to the ease of enforcement against
local companies in Brazil, as compared
to doing so against foreign-based
entities. It is also worth noting that, in
the event that the defendant-charterer
is not Brazilian and has no assets in the
country, the law does not permit any
action to be taken against other vessels
chartered by the same charterers
which subsequently enter Brazilian
jurisdiction. This may of course not
be the case where an owned vessel
subsequently enters the jurisdiction,
and the risks should be assessed
separately in each case.
Summary
Under Brazilian law both time and
voyage charterers may be exposed to
claims for fines and compensation by
authorities where a pollution incident
has occurred from the chartered vessel
in Brazilian jurisdiction.
Under administrative law charterers
are likely to escape liability simply by
demonstrating to the court that they
were not in control of the vessels
day to day operations and therefore
were not the cause of the pollution
incident. However, under civil law the
test to establish a duty to compensate
environmental damage is sufficiently
wide to accommodate charterers,
who are then held jointly and severally
liable with the owners and other parties
involved in and benefiting from the
vessels activities in Brazil. This is strict
liability and there is little defence
available.
However, as a matter of practice,
Brazilian charterers are more exposed
to civil law claims for compensation
than foreign charterers, and there is no
power for other chartered vessels to
be the subject of enforcement actions
for these claims. Furthermore, while
charterers will often be summoned
alongside owners, it is expected that
most owners will take positive steps
to avoid detention of the vessel,
thereby relieving charterers from direct
liability. Furthermore, there is no bar
to charterers seeking recourse against
the party responsible for the pollution
or bearing the contractual allocation of
risk for such liability.
We are grateful to Carbone Law Office,
Rio de Janeiro, for their invaluable
assistance in the preparation of this
article.
Footnotes
1 Civil Liability Conventions 1969
and 1992; Fund Convention 1992;
Hazardous and Noxious Substances
Convention 1996.
2 Article 14, 10.
26
Perfecting pollution
prevention? - The State
of Washington enacts a
new statute
October 2011
Since the passage of the federal Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), which
specifically allows the individual states
in the US to make their own marine
pollution laws and standards (staying
within legal limitations), the State of
Washington first tried to augment
OPA 90 with its own comprehensive
regulatory scheme, incorporating what
it called Best Achievable Protection
practices (BAP), controlling vessel
manning, tank vessel design and
construction, repairs, operations,
etc. This far-reaching regulatory
programme was opposed by industry,
as an impermissible over-reaching
into the province of the US federal
regulatory field and insisting that it
would set up severe inconsistencies
with the rest of the US, rendering
compliance expensive and practically
impossible. In March 2000, the industry
group Intertanko successfully obtained
a ruling from the US Supreme Court
to that effect, striking down 11 of the
regulations as illegal, and they were
repealed by the State of Washington in
June of that year.
But since that time, Washington State
officials have periodically issued
pollution protection regulations that
do not run afoul of legal limitations,
and in April 2011 the Washington
State legislature passed, and the
governor signed into law, the latest set
of regulations for tank vessels, due to
come into effect on 22nd July 2011.
These new statutory mandates include:
- Enhancement of vessel contingency
plan provisions, including a large
scale equipment deployment every
three years, that would be focused
on operational readiness of response
efforts in the first few hours of a
spill. New planning standards by the
Department of Ecology will be issued
every five years, starting with tank
vessels, with new rules set forth by 31st
December 2012.
- The Washington State Department
of Ecology is required to establish a
volunteer co-ordination system, to
handle the numerous citizens who
volunteer to participate in spill clean-
ups, and grants civil immunity to the
state for what said volunteers might
do. This is similar in aim to what the
State of California has done with its
creation of regulations for the handling
of volunteers post spill, the need for
which was seen in the 2007 Cosco
Busan spill in San Francisco. Not only
are the needs for human volunteers to
be addressed, but the new statute also
requires that more provisions be made
to incorporate into spill responses
vessels of opportunity, like fishing
boats, so that they can be used for
oil spill recovery efforts. This seems
to acknowledge the large role such
small vessels have in spill response,
most recently seen in the Deepwater
Horizon incident off Louisiana.
- The reporting of an emergency at sea
or a discharge or substantial threat of
discharge must be made within one
hour to the Washington Department
of Ecology, in addition to the US Coast
Guard. This is similar to requirements in
effect in several other states.
- Approval of contingency plans by the
State of Washington must be made and
notified within 65 days of submission.
- The use of umbrella plans for both
tank and non-tank vessels as per
Washington State law is still permitted,
but the omnibus plan must take into
account the maximum worst case
discharge amount of both vessel types,
and provide for additional equipment
to meet the challenge.
- The level of state fine to be assessed
for such an incident had been tripled,
to USD 3-300 per gallon for more than
1,000 gallons discharged, although any
oil recovered within the first 48 hours
after the spill will be credited against
the amount spilled.
These laws appear to dwell well within
the legal boundaries as set by the US
Supreme Court for such state statutes.
So, compliance planning for these
regulations will be necessary for tank
vessel operators (and those with mixed
fleets of tank and non-tank vessels),
who have vessels that will operate
in Washington State waters, and will
require work in the modification of
plans to conform to these enhanced
expectations.
Other coastal states in the US will
certainly take note of what the State of
Washington has done, and may mimic
those aspects of the new statute that
are not currently found in equivalent
terms within their own laws. In this
way, the states in the US that set the
trend are likely to be followed in kind
by other states in due course, and
so developments tend to eventually
spread throughout the US and become
the new standard. This is also fed
by developments in federal pollution
regulations, which states also watch
with interest, then tend to tailor, adopt,
and append to their own state laws,
further driving forward developments in
the area.
The matrix of state laws, and their
interplay with federal laws, is a hallmark
of marine pollution response in the US,
and is a peculiar feature that requires
vigilance in planning and flexibility
in compliance. Gard will continue to
monitor such developments and report
on them as warranted, in what has
proven to be a dynamic venue for the
evolution of marine pollution response
planning and regulation.
27
The state of
environmental crime
enforcement in the US
By Steven P. Solow and Anne M. Carpenter,
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Washington, D.C.
Gard News 203,
August/October 2011
Introduction
1
It has been over a year since the
20th April 2010 explosion on the
DEEPWATER HORIZON drilling rig in
the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting oil
spill (the Gulf spill) has been the subject
of multiple investigations and analyses.
According to the National Commission
on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
and Offshore Drilling, created on 20th
May 2010, the immediate cause of
the spill was a series of identifiable
mistakes by the companies in charge
of the rig.
2
A hundred spills could be similarly
described. The significance of the Gulf
spill, given its size and the tragic human
losses that occurred, will be analysed in
many different ways. For the purposes
of this article, we first look at the spill
in terms of what it may mean for the
criminal prosecution of environmental
violations.
This article then moves to an analysis
of current international projects that
highlight cross-national co-operation
in vessel pollution enforcement. Finally,
we provide a review of significant vessel
pollution enforcement cases from 2010,
and the start of 2011.
The Clean Water Act: proposals to
expand restitution and increase
sanctions
Legislation introduced in the wake of
the Gulf spill seeks to expand the scope
of restitution that may be imposed
following a criminal conviction of an
environmental crime. At present, a
federal judge has the discretion to
impose restitution to an identifiable
victim, but not, for example, for harm
caused to natural resources.
3
In 1996,
the U.S. Senate attempted to revise
the federal sentencing statutes to
expand the scope of restitution in
criminal cases by allowing judges
to order restitution to communities
harmed by environmental crimes.
4
That
attempt failed. The proposed post-spill
legislation would expand the scope of
restitution by mandating that judges
order restitution to victims of criminal
violations of the Clean Water Act.
5
The
bill does not propose to authorise the
order of restitution to communities as
a whole.
6
The bill also would direct the United
States Sentencing Commission to
review the sentencing guidelines for
Clean Water Act offences in order
to reflect the intent of Congress
that penalties for the offences be
increased [to] appropriately account
for the actual harm to the public and
the environment from the offences.
7

If this effort goes forward, we may
see similar efforts with regard to the
other major environmental statutes,
or a comprehensive effort, such as
that proposed in 1996, to expand the
scope of restitution to all environmental
criminal convictions.
Environmental crime investigation
and prosecution as a zero sum
game
Absent from the many analyses in
the media has been any meaningful
reporting on the impact of the criminal
investigation of the Gulf spill on the
rest of the governments environmental
crime enforcement efforts. This is
especially of note with the news that
the Department of Justice (DOJ) has
transferred the criminal investigation of
the Gulf spill from the Environmental
Crimes Section in the Environment
and Natural Resources Division to the
Criminal Division.
8
Given the relatively small amount of
federal resources typically devoted
to environmental criminal matters,
the impact of investigating and (if
appropriate) prosecuting cases arising
out of the Gulf spill is significant.
EPA recently touted the growth of
its Criminal Investigation Division to
a full complement of 200 special
agents.
9
To put this into perspective,
the FBI has somewhere north of 13,000
special agents.
10
While other agencies
are involved in environmental crime
investigations, EPA is unquestionably
the lead agency in this area, and the
commitment of numerous agents to the
Gulf spill investigation inevitably raises
questions about EPAs ability to cover
other matters.
The same resource questions existed
for the Environmental Crimes Section
at DOJ. During the governments
investigation and prosecution efforts
after the March 1989 EXXON VALDEZ
spill, it has been said that, at one point
or another, nearly all of the Justice
Departments environmental crime
prosecutors were working on the case.
While it has grown in the past 20 years,
the Justice Departments Environmental
Crimes Section has approximately
35 trial attorneys. Even if only four or
five of those attorneys are spending
a significant amount of time on the
Gulf spill investigation, that would be
more than 10 per cent of the sections
total. It is as yet unknown whether the
departments decision to move the Gulf
spill case into the Criminal Division will
inject new resources into the case and
free resources from the Environmental
Crimes Section.
With regard to EPA, particularly in an
atmosphere of budget cutting,
11
it is
similarly unknown whether another
impact of the Gulf spill will be a
reduction in the federal governments
ability to more broadly investigate
environmental crimes. If EPA were
so constrained it could impact more
than federal cases. In recent years
EPA has expanded and strengthened
its role in training and supporting the
work of state and local environmental
investigators and police. Hundreds of
state law enforcement officers have
been trained by EPA at the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center in
Georgia. Cuts to training budgets and
other forms of state assistance could
impact these resources as well.
As a means of comparison that may
or may not be an artifact of resource
allocation related to the spill, we can
compare the reports of cases coming
out of EPA Region 6 from 2009 to 2010.
In 2009, a total of eight matters involved
cases in Region 6.
12
A review of 2010
indicates one.
As in any major case, the government
will have to decide just how much
investigation of the Gulf spill it
can afford. As one former Justice
Department lawyer has observed,
A prosecutor is not obligated
to take every possible step in the
investigation of a suspected criminal
offence. Rather, the prosecutor should
consciously engage in an analysis
of proportionality in choosing which
28
investigative steps to pursue, and how
aggressively to pursue them.
13
The
availability of resources is a legitimate
consideration in determining the scope
and extent of a government criminal
investigation.
14
The underlying reason
for the shift of the Gulf spill case to
the Criminal Division is not publicly
known. Whatever the reason, moving
sole responsibility for prosecuting the
spill case to that division may allow the
Departments Environmental Crimes
Section to continue to play a leading
role in investigating and prosecuting
other environmental crime matters
around the country.
Whos in charge after a major
incident?
Another issue receiving scant coverage
is the remarkable, and remarkably
confusing, number of agreements
that address the federal governments
inter-agency co-ordination following
a significant event such as the Gulf
spill. There is insufficient space here
to address each memorandum of
understanding that exists between and
among the various agencies responding
to the spill. Indeed, several MOUs were
created specifically to co-ordinate work
involving the Gulf spill.
Part of what is remarkable about these
agreements is that they are generally
the result of bilateral discussions
between two government agencies
and do not reflect other MOUs that
exist between these same agencies and
other agencies. To provide a shorthand
way of visualising the MOUs between
and among the federal agencies with
authority to investigate environment
and safety matters, we have provided
the illustration below.
Federal Agencies with Memorandums of Understanding in Environmental and Safety Investigations
Agencies identified above (clockwise starting from top): Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration; Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard; National Transportation Safety Board; Chemical
Safety Board; Department of Interior; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement; Department of
Transportation; Environmental Protection Agency.
From the perspective of those who
must represent entities and individuals
who are the subject of such inquiries,
these MOUs create more questions
than answers. If an individual or entity
is approached by one agency to
provide information or to be asked for
an interview, it is often impossible to
know whether the agency is the lead
agency, or whether it is operating in
co-ordination with, or independently
from, other agencies. This situation not
only creates issues for those outside the
government, but also raises questions
within the government because it can
result in a lack of clear lines of authority
and communication with regard to
issues such as evidence preservation
and forensic analyses. Without
doubt, as the governments criminal
investigation of the Gulf spill moves
forward, increasing attention should be
paid to whether and how its handling of
this case impacts other cases involving
multiple agencies and parallel safety,
civil, and criminal investigations.
International co-operation in vessel
pollution enforcement and prosecution
Over the last few years, governments
have increased their co-ordinated
efforts to investigate and prosecute
vessel cases. Although many are familiar
with these developments as they
have occurred, we have summarised
them below in an effort to provide an
overview of what we see as a growing
culture of international co-operation
to investigate and bring enforcement
actions involving maritime vessel
pollution.
29
The Interpol Pollution Crime
Working Group
As is widely known, Interpols Pollution
Crime Working Group is a consortium
of criminal investigators from Interpols
188 member countries, which shares
information to develop new strategies
to control global environmental crime.
15

The Group includes various project-
teams including the Clean Seas Project,
led by an officer of the Australian
Maritime Safety Administration.
The Group developed a manual
on investigating vessel pollution
and plans to develop and deliver a
training course to international law
enforcement officers using the manual
as a guide.
16
In an effort to provide
enforcement guidance, and publicise
shipping companies and ships that
violate pollution law, the Clean Seas
Project also maintains a Ship Pollution
Prosecution Database that contains
information on completed prosecutions
by various countries for the period 2001
to 2006.
17
Aquapol
Aquapol is a self-governing association
of maritime and inland navigation-
related law enforcement authorities
from the member states of the
European Union and Switzerland.
18

The organisation, founded in 2002 by
the Dutch, German and Belgian Water
Police Forces, is an effort to improve
co-ordination of inland and maritime
shipping-related law enforcement
in Europe through the exchange of
good practice, joint training, joint
international control operations, and
joint legislation and lobbying efforts.
19
The North Sea Network
The North Sea Network of Investigators
and Prosecutors (NSN), a group of
coastal countries bordering the North
Sea, works to enforce international
rules and standards under the United
Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS), the International
Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78),
and the numerous regulations of the
International Maritime Organization
(IMO).
20
Because of the density of ship
traffic and close proximity of the coastal
states, the NSN has facilitated joint
efforts to investigate and prosecute
cases crossing national borders.
21
The
participating coastal states include
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden and the United Kingdom. The
NSN was begun by Norway in 2002, and
facilitates the exchange of information
between the member states regarding
legal and evidentiary requirements, as
well as surveillance data.
22
The NSN
has created an international manual
that offers guidance on the detection
of maritime oil pollution offences,
collection of evidence, and imposition
of penalties for offenders.
23

Maritime MOUs
Under the leadership of the IMO,
various MOUs have been established
between consortiums of port states to
co-ordinate compliance inspections
under Marpol 73/78. To date, MOUs
have been signed covering all of
the worlds oceans: the Paris MOU
covers Europe and the North Atlantic;
the Tokyo MOU covers Asia and the
Pacific; the Acuerdo de Via del Mar
covers Latin America; the Caribbean
MOU covers the Caribbean; the
Abuja MOU covers West and Central
Africa; the Black Sea MOU covers the
Black Sea region; the Mediterranean
MOU covers the Mediterranean; the
Indian Ocean MOU covers the Indian
Ocean; and the Riyadh MOU covers six
Persian Gulf states.
24
As time passes,
and enforcement efforts rise, these
documents are becoming increasingly
meaningful. For example, it appears
that vessel pollution enforcement
training in the Arab countries that
operate under the Riyadh MOU
(Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia and UAE) has increased in
recent years. While the Riyadh MOU
was enacted in 2004,
25
the increases
in enforcement training suggest that
it may only be a matter of time before
these countries begin to step up
enforcement on vessels transiting their
waters.
An example of international co-
operation to effectively and efficiently
prosecute vessel pollution can be
seen in United States v. Ionia Mgmt
S.A.
26
In Ionia, the US Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit upheld the
conviction of the shipping company
Ionia Management S.A. for violations
of the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships for failure to maintain an accurate
Oil Record Book for the M/T KRITON
while in US waters. The crew of the M/T
KRITON, a 600-foot oil tanker managed
by Ionia, routinely discharged oily
waste into the ocean through a magic
hose at the direction of the ships
Chief Engineers.
27
The crew also made
false entries into the Oil Record Book
to conceal the discharges and hid the
magic hose from US Coast Guard
inspectors. The Netherlands Royal
Military Police provided the US Coast
Guard with evidence of illegal dumping
which helped secure the conviction
against the company for violations
Ships.
28

Vessel enforcement cases of
note
29
United States v. Koos Shipping
Company
30
- Koos Shipping Company,
a Taiwanese Corporation, pleaded
guilty in federal court to charges of
making false statements, knowingly
failing to fully and accurately maintain
an oil record book, and knowingly
discharging oily bilge waste into
Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa,
without using proper pollution
prevention equipment. A Coast Guard
inspection of the companys ship M/V
SYOTA MARU on 17th August 2010
revealed evidence of the violations.
The company was sentenced to pay
a USD 750,000 criminal fine and USD
250,000 in community service payments
for projects in American Samoa. The
company was also placed on three
years probation.
United States v. Cardiff Marine, Inc.
31

- Cardiff Marine, Inc., a Liberian-
registered shipping company, was
sentenced in a Baltimore federal court
for a felony violation of the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships after the
company pleaded guilty to making
false statements to the Coast Guard,
falsification of discharge records
from the M/V CAPITOLA, and other
acts of concealment.A Coast Guard
investigation of the company was
launched on 3rd May 2010 after a crew
member informed a clergyman, who
was on board on a pastoral visit, about
monkey business in the engine room
involving a magic pipe. The crew
member gave the clergyman a flash
drive containing a video taken of the
ships engine room and asked him to
alert the Coast Guard. The investigation
revealed that the magic pipe was a
bypass hose that enabled the dumping
of waste oil overboard. The company
was sentenced to pay a USD 2.4
million fine and three years probation,
during which time third-party auditors
will administer an environmental
compliance plan for the company.
United States v. Stanships, Inc., et
al.
32
- Standships, Inc., Stanships, Inc.,
Standard Shipping, Inc., and Calmore
Maritime, Ltd. pleaded guilty on 12th
April 2011 to violations of the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships, Ports
and Waterways. Investigation into the
defendants began on 29th November
2010 after a crew member reported
to the Coast Guard that the ship M/V
AMERICANA had a magic pipe
that bypassed pollution controls to
dump oily waste overboard. The crew
deliberately pumped engine waste
overboard and created false Oil
Record Books to conceal the illegal
dumping. Efforts were made to hide
the pipe when the ship was in port.
The defendants were also charged with
failing to report a situation hazardous
to US waterways because the ship
entered the Mississippi River without a
fully-functioning generator and the crew
was unable to power the ship. Under
30
the terms of the plea agreement all
defendants are banned from operating
in the United States for a period of five
years. Defendants must also pay USD
1 million in restitution, of which USD
250,000 will be devoted to conservation
and protection of wildlife in the area.
United States v. Dimitrios Grifakis
33
-
Dimitrios Grifakis pleaded guilty to
obstructing a federal Coast Guard
investigation that was examining
the use of a magic pipe to bypass
required pollution controls on the
M/V CAPITOLA. Grifakis admitted
he instructed subordinates to dump
oily waste overboard via the pipe
between March 2009 and 3rd May 2010.
Grifakis obstructed the investigation
into the dumping by falsifying the
M/V CAPITOLAs Oil Record Books
and failing to produce Daily Sounding
Records for the ship, which could have
helped pinpoint days when dumping
occurred. Cardiff Marine, Inc., the
shipping company responsible for the
M/V CAPITOL, pleaded guilty on 3rd
February 2011 to violation of the Act
to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The
company was fined USD 2.4 million and
will serve three years probation.
United States v. Fleet Management
Ltd.
34
- Fleet Management Ltd., a Hong
Kong-based ship management firm,
pleaded guilty to a criminal violation
of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as well
as felony obstruction of justice and
false statement charges. The firm was
ordered to pay USD 10 million and
sentenced to three years probation
for its role in the COSCO BUSAN oil
spill and related cover-up after the ship
struck the San Francisco Bay Bridge in
November 2007. Fleet Management
concealed ship records and falsified
and forged documents to influence
the Coast Guards investigation. The
collision killed at least 2,000 migratory
birds including Brown Pelicans, Marbled
Murrelets and Western Grebes.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Fleet
Management was ordered to direct
USD 2 million of the USD 10 million
penalty to fund marine environmental
projects in the San Francisco Bay. The
firm was also ordered to implement
a comprehensive compliance plan to
heighten training and voyage planning
for ships engaged in trade with the
United States.
United States v. Irika Shipping S.A.
35
-
Irika Shipping S.A., a ship management
corporation, pleaded guilty to felony
obstruction of justice charges and
violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships. Irika was ordered to pay
more than USD 4 million in fines
and community service restitution
for deliberately concealing vessel
pollution from the M/V IRANA, one of
the companys cargo ships that made
port calls in US cities. The ships chief
engineer directed the dumping of
approximately 6,000 gallons of waste
oil overboard through a bypass hose
that circumvented pollution prevention
equipment. Irika also received five
years probation, during which the
company is required to develop an
enhanced environmental compliance
plan covering all its ships, including any
new vessels.
United States v. Avaz,
36
United States
v. Mogultay,
37
United States v. Atlas
Ship Management Ltd.
38
- Gunduz
Avaz, a Turkish citizen and the chief
engineer on the cargo ship M/V
AVENUE STAR, operated by Atlas Ship
Management Ltd., was sentenced
to five years probation for failing to
fully and accurately maintain an oil
record book in violation of the Act
to Prevent Pollution from Ships. Avaz
failed to record illegal discharges
of oil-contaminated waste from the
engine room of the ship that was
transferred to a ballast storage tank,
and then disposed of at sea as the
vessel travelled from Honduras to
Tampa, Florida. Yavuz Mogultay, the
second assistant engineer, was charged
separately for the use of a bypass hose
to discharge waste and the failure to
record the discharges in the ships oil
record book. Mogultay was sentenced
to five years probation. Atlas Ship
Management Ltd. separately pleaded
guilty to making false statements and
knowingly failing to accurately maintain
an oil record book. The company was
sentenced to three years probation and
a USD 800,000 fine. The company was
also ordered to pay USD 100,000 to the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
and implement an environmental
compliance programme covering
inspection and audit of its ships that sail
into the United States.
United States v. Aksay Denizcilik Ve
Ticaret A.S.
39
- Aksay Denizcilik Ve
Ticaret A.S., a Turkish corporation that
operated the ship M/T KERIM, pleaded
guilty to making a false statement and
failure to fully and accurately maintain
an oil record book. Between 2006
and 2009 officers and crew of the M/T
KERIM, under the direction of Aksay,
used a pipe to bypass the ships oil
pollution prevention equipment and
discharge oil-contaminated waste
directly into the ocean. Aksay was
sentenced to three years probation
and a USD 725,000 fine, and ordered
to implement an environmental
compliance programme.
United States v. DRD Towing Co. LLC,
40

United States v. Dantin
41
- DRD Towing
Co. LLC pleaded guilty to a felony
violation of the Ports and Waterways
Safety Act, and a misdemeanor violation
of the Clean Water Act. Randall Dantin,
a co-owner of the company, also
pleaded guilty to a separate charge
of obstruction of justice. DRD Towing
assigned employees to operate vessels
without proper Coast Guard licensing,
paid captains to operate without a relief
captain, and created environmentally
hazardous conditions by negligently
discharging oil. The company admitted
that the M/V MEL OLIVER was pushing
a tanker barge of fuel oil when it crossed
the path of the M/T TINTOMARA
and caused a collision resulting in the
discharge of 282,686 gallons of fuel into
the Mississippi River. DRD Towing was
sentenced to two years probation and
a USD 200,000 fine, while Dantin was
sentenced to 21 months in prison, two
years of supervised release, and a USD
50,000 fine.
United States v. The China Navigation
Co. Pte. Ltd.
42
- The China Navigation
Co. Pte. Ltd., a marine cargo vessels
operation, pleaded guilty to a felony
violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution
from Ships based on its failure to
maintain an oil record book. The oil
record book failed to note that the
crew had discharged approximately
275 gallons of oil-contaminated waste
collected by crew members after
an on-board oil spill in violation of
the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the
company agreed to pay a USD 75,000
fine, serve two years probation,
implement an environmental compliance
plan, and pay USD 25,000 to the
Columbia River Estuarine Coastal Fund.
United States v. Cooperative Success
Maritime S.A.
43
- Cooperative Success
Maritime S.A., the operator of the
M/T CHEM FAROS, a cargo ship that
regularly transported cargo between
foreign ports and the United States,
pleaded guilty to violation of the Act
to Prevent Pollution from Ships and
making false statements. The crew of
the M/T CHEM FAROS discharged
approximately 13,200 gallons of oil-
contaminated waste into the ocean,
and falsified entries in the oil record
book to conceal the amount of oil-
contaminated bilge waste that was
actually stored aboard the ship. The
company was sentenced to a USD
850,000 fine, of which USD 150,000
was directed to the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, five years
probation, and the implementation
of an environmental compliance
programme.
United States v. Sikharulidze
44
- Vaja
Sikharulidze, former chief engineer of
the M/T CHEM FAROS, operated by
Cooperative Success Maritime S.A.,
31
pleaded guilty to violating the Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships for failure
to properly maintain an oil record book
recording disposal of contaminated
waste. On at least one occasion,
Sikharulidze directed subordinate
crew members to bypass the ships
oil-water separator, and pump oil-
contaminated waste directly overboard.
Approximately 13,200 gallons of oil-
contaminated waste was discharged
into the ocean. Sikharulidze received
one years probation and seven days of
home confinement for his conduct.
United States v. Dimitrios Dimitrakis
45

- Dimitrios Dimitrakis, chief engineer
of the M/V NEW FORTUNE cargo
ship, was sentenced to three years
probation, and a USD 5,000 fine for
aiding and abetting the failure to
maintain an oil record book. Dimitrakis
routinely ordered his crew to bypass
the oil pollution prevention equipment
and discharge oil-contaminated
materials directly into the ocean
when entering US waters. Dimitrakis
concealed these discharges via false
entries into the ships oil record book.
Volodymyr Dombrovskyy, another
crew member, was sentenced to two
years probation, and a USD 500 fine
for aiding and abetting the failure to
maintain an oil record book. Transmar
Shipping Co. S.A., the ships operator,
was separately sentenced for failure
to maintain an oil record book and
false statements made to a federal
official, three years probation, a USD
750,000 fine, a USD 100,000 community
service payment to the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, and was
ordered to implement an environmental
compliance programme.
Footnotes
1 Portions of this article previously
appeared in: Steven P. Solow & Anne M.
Carpenter, The State of Environmental
Crime Enforcement: A Survey of
Developments in 2010, Daily Envt
Report (BNA) No. 50 DEN B-1 (Mar. 15,
2011).
2 National Commission on the BP
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling, Report to the
President, Deep Water: The Gulf Oil
Disaster and the Future of Offshore
Drilling, p. vii (January 2011), available
at http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/
final-report.
3 See 18 U.S.C. 3553, 3663.
4 Environmental Crimes and
Enforcement Act of 1996, S. 2096, 104th
Cong. (1996).
5 Environmental Crimes Enforcement
Act of 2011, S. 350, 112th Cong. (2011)
(proposing to amend 18 U.S.C.
3663A(c)(1)(A)). See http://www.gpo.
gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s350is/pdf/
BILLS-112s350is.pdf BILLS-112s350is.
pdf.
6 See id.
7 Id.
8 Justice Department Sets Up Task
Force for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Investigation(46 DEN A-11, 3/9/11).
9 Giles Says EPA Pursuing High-Impact
Cases, Adding Criminal Investigators to
Staff (184 DEN A-7, 9/24/10).
10 See http://www2.fbi.gov/quickfacts.
htm.
11 The Presidents proposed budget for
FY2012 cuts, among other things, the
EPA budget for Forensic Support by
thousands of dollars - a pittance in the
deficit abyss, but potentially significant
to EPAs ability to provide functional
support for investigations. See http://
www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
annualplan/fy2012.html
12 EPA Region 6 covers Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Texas and the areas covered by 66
Native American Tribes.
13 See Rory K. Little, Proportionality as
an Ethical Precept for Prosecutors in
Their Investigative Role, 68 Fordham l.
Rev. 723, 770 (1999).
14 See ABA Criminal Justice Standards
on Prosecutorial Investigations,
2.1(c)(vi), available at http://www.
americanbar.org/groups/criminal_
justice/policy/standards.html.
15 See Interpol, The Pollution Crime
Working Group, available at http://www.
interpol.int/Public/EnvironmentalCrime/
Pollution/WorkingGroup.asp.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 See Aquapol, International Police
Cooperation on the Water, available at
http://www.aquapol-police.com/.
19 Id.
20 See The North Sea Network
of Investigators and Prosecutors,
available at http://www.ospar.
org/content/content.asp?me
nu=00580623000000_000000_000000.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 See International Maritime
Organization, Port State Control,
available at http://www.imo.org/
OurWork/Safety/Implementation/
Pages/PortStateControl.aspx.
25 See Riyadh Memorandum of
Understanding on Port State Control,
available at http://www.riyadhmou.org/.
26 555 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009).
27 555 F.3d at 306.
28 See Press Release, U.S. Dept of
Justice, Tanker Company Fined $4.9
Million for Falsifying Records and
Obstruction of Justice (Dec. 14, 2007).
29 Like other sources, our data on
environmental criminal cases is
probably incomplete. Our sources,
among others, include the websites of
EPA and DOJ, as well as BNAs Daily
Environment Report, and the always
useful Environmental Crimes Blog of
Walter James, accessible at http://www.
environmentalblog.typepad.com.
30 No. 1:11-cr-00034-GK-1 (D.D.C.
guilty plea entered Mar. 31, 2011).
31 No. 1:11-cr-00058-MJG (D. Md. guilty
plea entered Mar. 17, 2011).
32 No. 2:11-cr-00057-CJB (E.D. La.
guilty plea entered April 12, 2011).
33 No. 1:11-cr-00011-MJG (D.Md. guilty
plea entered May 5, 2011).
34 No. 3:08-cr-00160-SI (N.D. Cal.
sentencing Feb. 19, 2010).
35 Nos. 1:10-cr-00403-JSM and 1:10-cr-
00372-JSM (D. Md. sentencing Sept. 21,
2010).
36 No. 8:10-cr-00286-JSM (M.D. Fla.
sentencing Sept. 7, 2010).
37 No. 8:10-cr-00264-JDW (M.D. Fla.
sentencing Aug. 26, 2010).
38 No. 8:10-cr-00363-SDM (M.D. Fla.
sentencing Dec. 2, 2010).32 No. 2:11-cr-
00057-CJB (E.D. La. guilty plea entered
April 12, 2011).
39 No. 8:10-cr-00116-RAL (M.D. Fla.
sentencing May 21, 2010).
40 No. 2:10-cr-00191-ILRL (E.D. La.
sentencing Jan. 19, 2011).
41 No. 2:10-cr-00190-ILRL (E.D. La.
sentencing Jan 19, 2011).
42 No. 3:10-cr-05181-BHS (W.D. Wash.
sentencing Mar. 22, 2010).
43 No. 4:10-cr-00035-D (E.D.N.C.
sentencing June 7, 2010).
44 No. 4:10-cr-00032-D (E.D.N.C.
sentencing Aug. 17, 2010).
45 No. 4:10-cr-00552-DLJ (N.D. Cal.
sentencing Sept. 30, 2010).
32
US law Criminal
prosecutions of MARPOL
violations
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
confims US jurisdiction to criminally
prosecute ship operators for crew
violations of MARPOL.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
has joined the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals in confirming that shipowners
and operators may be criminally
prosecuted and held vicariously liable
for entering US waters with false
entries in the Oil Record Book (ORB)
designed to hide discharges of waste
oil in violation of MARPOL. On 20th
January 2009 a three-judge panel
ruled in the case United States v. Ionia
Management
1
that the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships (APPS), the US
version of the MARPOL Convention,
imposes a positive duty on the subject
ships to ensure that their oil record
books are accurate (or at least not
knowingly inaccurate) upon entering
the ports or navigable waters of the
United States.
Ionia was the ship manager of the
tanker KRITON, which delivered oil
products to various US east coast ports.
At the trial the jury found that the
engine room crew under the direction
of the chief engineers routinely
discharged waste oil into international
waters by bypassing the oily water
separator and made entries in the ORB
to make it appear that the vessel was in
compliance. The jury also determined
that senior engine room personnel
obstructed justice by directing junior
crew members to lie to the Coast
Guard and by destroying evidence. The
company was convicted under the rule
of vicarious criminal liability, meaning
that there was no proof required that
the company management was aware
of any of the criminal activity on board
the vessel.
The Second Circuit followed the Fifth
Circuits decision in United States v.
Jho
2
in holding that the crime under
APPS is the failure to maintain
the ORB.
3
Both courts found that
maintenance of the ORB implies a duty
upon a foreign flag vessel to ensure
that the entries are accurate and that
this is a continuing duty that applies
when the vessel calls at US ports. The
MARPOL treaty provides for flag state
jurisdiction for compliance within
international waters. The court ruled
that because the failure to maintain the
ORB occurs within US waters, the US as
port state has jurisdiction to prosecute
the company and the individuals and
that there is no positive duty under
international law for the port state to
refer the matter to the flag state.
Vicarious corporate liability is here
to stay
The Second Circuit also considered
arguments made by amici curiae4 that
urged the court to review the standards
for corporate vicarious criminal liability.
Vicarious liability of a corporation for
acts of its agents or employees is well
known within the civil law under the
rubric respondeat superior: let the
master answer. It is well established
within tort principles that the employer
is responsible to pay compensation
when an employees negligence harms
another. This is so even when the
employee has acted against corporate
policy and instructions, as long as the
act leading to the injury can be said
to be within the employees scope
of employment. Amici attacked
the wholesale incorporation of the
respondeat superior principle into the
criminal law on the ground that APPS
did not provide for corporate vicarious
liability and, absent specificity in the
statute, criminal conviction requires
some form of intent at least on the part
of the corporate management.
The Ionia jury was instructed that a
corporation may be held criminally
liable for the acts of its agent done
on behalf of and for the benefit of
the corporation, and directly related
to the performance of the duties
the employee has authority to
perform. As is the norm in this type
of case, the illegal discharges were in
contravention of company policy and
the management company was not
aware of the illegal discharges or the
false entries in the ORB. Indeed, as the
result of a prior conviction, Ionia had a
court-approved compliance plan at the
time of the alleged violations.
The Second Circuit affirmed the jurys
guilty verdict against the company
because the operation of the engine
room and record keeping were clearly
within the scope of employment for
the engine room crew. Further, based
upon expert testimony put forward by
the government, the Second Circuit
held that the jury was entitled to find
that the bypassing and false entries
were performed for the benefit of the
company based on the extra time and
expense involved in properly disposing
of the oily waste water.
Finally, the court rejected the argument
made by amici that the government
was required to prove within its case
that Ionia lacked effective policies and
procedures to deter and detect the
criminal acts of its employees. The
court held that the lack of an effective
environmental compliance plan is not
an element of proof for the government
but instead an effective plan is a
defence available to the defendant
in showing that the crew member at
issue was not acting for the benefit of
the company and within the scope of
employment.
The Federal Appellate system in the
United States is divided into twelve
Circuits with each of the Circuit Courts
of Appeal responsible for interpreting
the federal law within the cases brought
before it, subject only to review by the
Supreme Court.
5
The Second and
Fifth Circuits are considered to be
leaders in matters of maritime law and
their decisions are frequently followed
in the other Circuits deciding similar
questions. Thus, it is now without
doubt that the owner and operator
of any vessel entering US waters with
an inaccurate ORB are vulnerable
to criminal investigation and, if it is
shown that the entries were made for
the purpose of hiding discharges in
violation of MARPOL, the owner and
operator will be subject to criminal
prosecution and vicarious liability for
criminal acts of crew members resulting
in severe fines, onerous probation
terms and prolonged disruption of
their operations. Lack of knowledge
of crew non-compliance is no defence.
A jury may consider a companys
compliance efforts but, in itself, those
efforts are not an absolute defence.
Rather, the compliance efforts are
facts that may be considered by the
jury in determining whether the crew
was acting to benefit the company.
Compliance efforts are also relevant
33
and mitigating factors considered by
a court in determining the proper fine
after conviction.
Corporate responsibility for
environmental compliance requires
a vigorous and proactive approach
For many years, Gard has been warning
members about the severe penalties
for violations of MARPOL through
circulars, Gard News articles and
seminar presentations. This risk is not
just in the US but includes European
port and flag states as well. Despite
such warnings by Gard, other Clubs
and shipping associations, shipowners
and operators continue to be charged
for vicarious liability for record keeping
violations masking illegal discharges.
The US prosecutors offer a reward in
the form of a portion of the fine to crew
members who report violations. So-
called whistleblower rewards are now
well-known in the crewing community
and an undeniable incentive to report
wrongdoing not to the company but to
the authorities. Gard has repeatedly
advised members that in order to
minimise risk they must implement a
vigorous environmental compliance
programme and actively audit
compliance aboard their vessels. Gard
recommends that members benchmark
their programme against the guidance
document prepared by the International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the
International Shipping Federation (ISF)
Industry Guidance on Environmental
Compliance A Framework for
ensuring compliance with MARPOL.
6

The guidance document includes such
topics as management responsibility,
corporate and individual responsibility,
training, awareness and competence,
waste stream analysis and budget,
technical equipment, control devices,
documentation, internal reporting,
external reporting and audit systems.
While each company must compose
and execute its own environmental
compliance programme in conformity
with its culture and needs, all
programmes should address the
components set out in the ICS/ISF
framework.
In introducing the framework, ICS and
ISF acknowledge the prosecution of
companies, particularly in the US, for
MARPOL violations and comment
that prosecuting authorities have
identified the absence of a systematic
approach to identifying and managing
compliance with environmental
requirements as a common failure.
An effective compliance plan with
demonstrable crew training in proper
use of the pollution prevention
equipment and company environmental
policy will, as the Second Circuit has
indicated in the Ionia decision, provide
a defence to vicarious corporate
criminal liability in rebutting the
contention that an illegal discharge
and false record keeping were for the
benefit of the company and within
the scope of employment.
The guidance is relevant to preventing
all forms of pollution but can be read in
conjunction with the Shipping Industry
Guidance on the Use of Oily Water
Separators, also published by ICS/ISF.
Gard recommends both documents to
members. Both can be found at www.
marisec.org/environmental-compliance.
The MARPOL requirement that oily
waste water be processed by an
oily water separator and discharges
properly recorded in an ORB were first
implemented in 1983, more than 25
years ago. MARPOL is one of the most
widely subscribed international treaties
with virtually all of the maritime nations
as signatories. The risks of violation of
the treaty requirements have been very
well publicised by the P&I Clubs as well
as other shipping organisations. No
prudent ship operator can send ships
to sea today without an environmental
compliance plan that includes proper
crew training and regular audits.
It is important to remember that the
mere institution of a compliance plan
alone will not exonerate an owner/
operator from culpability for MARPOL/
APPS violations. The shipowner and
operator must be proactive in ensuring
that their environmental polices are
Footnotes
1 United States v. Ionia Management S.A., No. 07-5801-cr, 08-1387-cr (2d Cir. 2009), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 902 (decided Jan. 20, 2009); 2009 AMC 153.
2 United States v. Jho, 534 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2008). The Jho decision is discussed in the article US law Oil record book violations in Gard News issue
No. 192.
3 The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships is intended to implement the MARPOL Convention but the requirement to maintain the ORB is not explicit
in MARPOL. Rather, the MARPOL regulations refer to making full and complete entries and keeping the ORB for examination for at least three years
following the last entry. See Implications of the Jho Doctrine, by Dennis Bryant, Senior Maritime Counsel, Holland and Knight, August 2008 at www.
marinelink.com.
4 Amicus curiae (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin term, literally translated as friends of the court and refers to someone who volunteers to advocate
a position before a court even though they were not a party to the case itself. In the Ionia case a number of business and legal defence associations
were amici, namely: Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Washington Legal Foundation, Association of Corporate Counsel, National Association
of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Manufacturers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
5 Review by the US Supreme Court is discretionary and relatively rare.
6 See article ICS/ISF guidance on environmental compliance in Gard News issue No. 189.
understood and followed by personnel
serving aboard their ships. While many
ship operations can be sub-contracted,
liability for proper performance remains
with the owner and operator. Regular,
documented on-board audits of
shipboard environmental compliance
with oversight by senior shore side
management are an absolute necessity
for effective compliance efforts.
Vigorous and proactive management of
shipboard environmental compliance
will in most instances prevent practices
leading to prosecution in the US and, in
the event a crew member does violate
company policy, will provide the owner
and operator with the best defence
available under APPS to corporate
vicarious liability for the wrongful
actions.
Further information
For more information about MARPOL
violations in the US readers should refer
to:
Gard News articles:
US law Oil record book violations
(issue No. 192);
The greening of the deep blue sea
Corporate environmental compliance
today (issue No. 191);
US Coast Guard formal policy on
voluntary disclosure of MARPOL
violations (issue No. 189);
Oily water separator bypass in the US
The tables are turned (issue No. 189);
ICS/ISF guidance on environmental
compliance (issue No. 189);
US Coast Guard new Oil Record
Books (issue No. 188);
MARPOL Annex VI New risks and
challenges for owners and charterers
(issue No. 187);
Waste management From oily water
to plastics (issue No. 186);
US law MARPOL violations in the US
(issue No. 184);
MARPOL Annex VI Solving the low
sulphur issue (issue No. 184);
Recent changes in US regulations
(issue No. 182);
Oil and water dont mix (issue No.
180);
34
Pollution Ships, crews and shore
side management face ever-increasing
fines and prison sentences (issue No.
175);
Environmental crime Myths and
reality (issue No. 167);
The United States Ocean Dumping
Act (issue No. 159);
Discharge of oil prohibited (issue No.
152).
Loss Prevention Circulars:
New Permit Requirements for Vessels
ICS/ISF guidance
on environmental
compliance
ICS and ISF publish guidance for
ensuring compliance with MARPOL.
The International Chamber of Shipping
(ICS) and the International Shipping
Federation (ISF) have published a new
leaflet: Shipping Industry Guidance
on Environmental Compliance A
framework for ensuring compliance
with MARPOL. The framework is
intended to be used by shipowners and
operators as a template for review of
company environmental compliance
programmes. The framework is
supported by BIMCO, Intertanko,
Intercargo, OCIMF and SIGTTO.
The guidance document includes such
topics as management responsibility,
corporate and individual responsibility,
training, awareness and competence,
waste stream analysis and budget,
technical equipment, control devices,
documentation, internal reporting,
external reporting and audit systems.
While each company must compose
and execute its own environmental
compliance programme in conformity
with its culture and needs, all
programmes should address the
components set out in the ICS/ISF
framework.
In introducing the framework, ICS and
ISF acknowledge the prosecution of
companies, particularly in the United
States, for MARPOL violations and
comment that prosecuting authorities
have identified the absence of a
systematic approach to identifying
and managing compliance with
environmental requirements as a
common failure. The framework is a
tool for companies to use in reviewing
US Environmental Protection Agency
(No. 16-08);
US Coast Guard Formal policy
on voluntary disclosure of MARPOL
violations (No. 13-07);
Environmental crime Oil water
discharges off the East Coast of Canada
(No. 14-02);
Environmental Crime Myths and
Reality (No. 05-02);
Oily water separation and discharge:
Discharge of oil prohibited (No. 07-01);
Oily water separation and discharge:
Risk of oil pollution versus vessels
safety (No. 06-01).
P&I Member Circulars:
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships 73/78
MARPOL Oily Water Separators (No.
03/05).
their own practices and determine
any additional steps that may be
needed to ensure compliance with
environmental protection obligations.
The guidance is relevant to preventing
all forms of pollution but can be read in
conjunction with the Shipping Industry
Guidance on the Use of Oily Water
Separators, also published by ICS/
ISF. Gard commends both documents
to members. Both can be downloaded
at www.marisec.org/environmental-
compliance.
Gard News 189,
February 2008/April 2008
35
Oil and water dont mix
By Captain Helge Oliversen, Project Manager,
Norwegian Training Center, Manila
Introduction
Everybody knows that oil and water
dont mix. But in the maritime industry
separating oil from water is not a simple
matter, although it is a very important
one. Any breach of MARPOL 73/78
can have severe consequences for the
shipowner and the officers and crew
involved. Failing to separate one from
the other could pollute the worlds
bodies of water and cost shipowners
and responsible officers a lot of money
in fines, or even land them in jail.
1
In
tonnage terms, the most important
pollutant resulting from shipping
operations is oil.
The Norwegian Training Center
Manila
(NTC-M), which was established in 1990
to provide relevant training to Filipino
seafarers serving on its members ships,
has joined with Hoegh Fleet Services
to create a five-day course entitled
Bilge Water/Waste Oil Operational
Management. The course is supported
with training material from Gard.
Contents of the course
The course is designed for marine deck
officers and marine engine officers and
provides participants with an effective
refresher on waste oil management.
Aside from reminding them of the
details of bilge water and waste oil
management, the course aims to
heighten their awareness of the need
to be responsible officers, especially
in dealing with waste matters that can
pollute the sea. This is in line with NTC-
Ms key objective to improve the human
factor in ship operations.
The contents of the course are as
follows:
Theoretical upgrading and
awareness
The course covers applicable marine
pollution laws and regulations
extensively. Among the regulations is
MARPOL 73/78. This is one of the most
important global conventions for the
prevention of pollution from ships. It
governs the design and equipment
of ships, establishes a system of
certificates and inspection and requires
states to provide reception facilities
for the disposal of oily waste and
chemicals. In addition, MARPOL 73/78
requires water from engineering spaces
to pass through the oily water separator
(OWS) before discharge to meet the
requirement of the 15 ppm limit to
the oil content of water that can be
discharged to the sea. A corollary to the
requirement to separate oil from water
before discharge is the requirement for
all vessels to maintain a sludge tank to
store oil wastes. Sludge generated by
the OWS must either be incinerated or
pumped ashore.
MARPOL 73/78 has six annexes. Annex
I details regulations for the prevention
of pollution by oil. A very important
regulation under this Annex is the
requirement that every ship should have
an Oil Record Book, which should have
accurate and complete daily records of
relevant machinery space operations.
Proper use of the Oil Record Book is
emphasised in the course. Another
important regulation covered in the
course is the outcome of the 49th
session of the IMO Marine Environment
Protection Committee (MEPC49).
Practical training and exercises
The course has six practical exercises
that take the participants through
the stages of bilge water and waste
oil management. For this purpose,
a laboratory has been set up inside
the premises of NTC-M simulating all
the components that make up a bilge
water/waste oil management system.
The laboratory simulates a bilge
well where bilge water and waste oil
accumulate, an oily bilge holding tank
with a separated oil tank containing
mostly oil and a bilge holding tank
containing mostly water and an OWS
that filters oil from water down to less
than 15 ppm (the permitted amount
of oil in water that can be thrown
overboard), a separate oil tank, an
incinerator waste tank and a holding
tank to port facilities. The exercises
focus on the OWS systems and
operation. The heart of the system or,
should we say, kidney or liver is the
OWS, which takes care of filtering oil
from water. As such, the course stresses
that the OWS should not be overly
taxed. As a person should not take
excessive levels of alcohol so as not to
destroy the liver, marine deck officers
or marine engine officers in charge of
waste oil management should not feed
excessively oily water to the OWS.
The system of waste oil management is
designed to separate oil from water in
the oily bilge holding tank so that the
water fed to the OWS will no longer
contain so much oil. However, knowing
from experience that this system is
prone to malfunction due to human
negligence, NTC-M has designed a
support sub-system called physical
separation, composed of cascading
tanks of differing elevations. Using the
well-known fact that oil floats above
water, the cascading tanks capture
water that settles below each tank
and forward the oilier portion to the
succeeding tanks. Only the water
captured in this process is finally fed
to the OWS for further filtration. In
this way, the effect of possible human
negligence is reduced in the process
and the OWS is not taxed excessively.
This will of course prolong the life of the
OWS.
Conclusion
The Bilge Water/Waste Oil Operational
Management Course has been warmly
received by the industry since it was
introduced as a pilot course by NTC-M
in 2004. Attendance has always been
very good. Now that Bilge Water/Waste
Oil Operational Management is offered
as a regular course, NTC-M hopes it will
be able to contribute to protecting the
environment from oil pollution, having a
positive impact on the human factor in
ship operations.
Gard News 180,
November 2005/January 2006
36
Environmental Crime
Myths and Reality
Prosecutions of shipowners and
crewmembers in the United States
criminal courts for environmental crimes
have recently hit the headlines in both
industry and general news media. The
purpose of this article is to explain the
background for the spate of high profile
criminal investigations and prosecutions
as well as to explode the myths that
may lead some in the industry to
wrongly conclude that they have little or
no exposure for similar treatment.
The regulatory background
To put it in simple terms, the
International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL 73/78) provides that oily
water discharge from bilges shall not
exceed 15 parts per million (ppm)
unless the discharge is necessary for
securing the safety of the ship or saving
life at sea. MARPOL 73/78 further
requires ships to process oily water in
an oily water separator and to monitor
the discharge with detection and an
alarm system that shuts off discharge
in the event it exceeds 15 ppm while
triggering an alarm.
MARPOL 73/78 further requires the
ships crew to maintain an Oil Record
Book (ORB) and to record discharges,
both those meeting the 15 ppm
requirement and those exceeding it (for
example, in an emergency). Port State
control authorities may inspect the
ORB. In the United States, the United
States Coast Guard (USCG) does port
State inspections for compliance with
MARPOL 73/78. MARPOL 73/78 is
implemented in the various signatory
countries by domestic legislation.
MARPOL 73/78 regulations call for
administrative proceedings and fines
and penalties for violation. It is the
flag state that administers the penalty
provisions under domestic regulations.
Shipboard practice
Oily water that collects in the engine
room bilges was often pumped
overboard in international waters before
MARPOL 73/78 became effective in
1983. At the time of implementation,
the technology for oily water separation
was less effective than it is today. The
bilge tank capacity tended to be
small and the OWS were inefficient in
processing the oily water.
Since the MARPOL requirements have
been in force and to save themselves
time and trouble in dealing with
the less effective older units, some
creative engineering crewmen have
devised ways to circumvent the OWS
or the monitoring equipment in order
to discharge oily water overboard.
According to government allegations
in the US investigations, this has been
done by either piping around the OWS
or flushing the oil content meter with
seawater to push more water through
the meter and fool it into registering
oil content at less than 15 ppm. This
is not to suggest that many crewmen
fail to comply with environmental
requirements. But for those few that
do, the sanctions for the shipowner or
operator can be devastating.
Myths, Dangerous Half Truths and
Painful Reality
We now turn to some widely held but
incorrect assumptions about violation
of MARPOL regulations with respect to
the current criminal prosecutions in the
United States for environmental crimes.
Myth: Violation of MARPOL in
International Waters is of interest
only to the Flag State.
It is true that the convention
contemplates that enforcement actions
will be taken by the Flag state, that is,
where the vessel is registered. This
does not mean, however, that the
authorities in the United States are
uninterested in policing worldwide
violations of international pollution
laws. Read on.
Myth: The United States has no
jurisdiction to prosecute without
pollution in U.S. waters.
Wrong. Recent criminal prosecutions
have not involved pollution of US
waters. MARPOL 73/78 requires
that entries be made in the ORB for
discharges. The ORB is routinely
reviewed during port State inspections
conducted by the USCG. If the crew
has bypassed the OWS or flushed
the sensors and discharged oily water
overboard but recorded the discharges
as clean the company may be
charged with violation of US law for
presenting a materially false document
to a US authority. This is a crime under
general criminal law in the United States
and provides jurisdiction in the federal
criminal court over both the individuals
involved and the company.
Myth: The penalty for bypassing the
OWS is a $5,000 administrative fine
under MARPOL
This is a dangerous half-truth. In
the United States the crime charged
is presenting a false ORB and the
maximum fine against the company
under the US criminal sentencing
guidelines is $500,000. This fine may
be doubled if the violation resulted
in financial gain for the company. For
example, Carnival Cruise Line in a
plea agreement recently accepted an
$18,000,000 fine for presenting false
ORBs on six of its ships.
Additionally, crew involved may be
prosecuted individually and put in jail!
The maximum penalty upon conviction
for individuals is five years incarceration
and $250,000 in fines.
Myth: The P & I Club will reimburse
the fine under its cover for pollution
Gards Protection and Indemnity cover,
like that of all Clubs in the International
Group, is a named risk cover. The risks
covered are set out in Gards Statutes
and Rules. Gards Rule 38 Pollution
expressly excludes fines. Gards Rule
47 Fines covers fines and penalties
imposed upon a Member by any
court tribunal or other authority of
competent jurisdiction for or in respect
of the accidental escape or discharge
of oil. Intentionally bypassing the
OWS or flushing the sensors and
pumping oily water overboard is not
considered by the Association to be
accidental.
Gards pollution and fines rules were
clarified and narrowed in policy year
2000 in line with a model rule adopted
by the International Group of P & I
Clubs. Thus, under the current rules,
no Club in the International Group
covers fines as a matter of right for
intentionally pumping oily water
containing 15 ppm overboard or for
falsification of an Oil Record Book.
A final word of Warning
The USCG has intensified its focus on
Oily Water Separators and Oil Record
Books, specifically looking for violators.
Loss Prevention Circular
No. 05-02
37
The USCG inspections involve both
large operators and single ship
companies. USCG Inspectors aided by
other state and federal agencies look
for evidence of bypass piping, including
wear patterns indicating removal of
fittings or even fresh painting to cover
wear patterns. If there is suspicion of
bypassing, the crew may be detained
for questioning under Grand Jury
Subpoena, the ship records and
equipment will likely be seized and
vessel detained.
The only effective way to avoid
investigation and prosecution is
not to violate the MARPOL 73/78
requirements in the first place. That
means the company must have
a well-monitored environmental
compliance program including ship
audits, upgrading of equipment as
required and training. If caught up in
an investigation, the shipowner will
need to immediately obtain advice of
qualified criminal counsel. One of the
biggest mistakes that can be made
is to destroy or conceal evidence in a
criminal investigation for to do so will
bring additional criminal charges of
obstruction of justice.
The single most frequent port State
detention deficiency item for vessels
Oily water separation
and discharge: Risk of oil
pollution versus vessels
safety
Introduction
As part of our overall loss prevention
activities, Gard Services regularly
monitors port State detentions from the
Paris Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU), Tokyo MoU and United States
Coast Guard (USCG). In 2000, there
was a total of 131 detentions of ships
entered in the Gard P&I portfolio. Oily
water separation and discharge related
items were the single most frequent
deficiency cited. Similar results were
also observed in the detention of
vessels entered in the Gard Marine
portfolio for 2000 (147 detentions and
the second most cited deficiency). We
are not satisfied with these figures.
As a result, we believe it is necessary
to revisit this issue for Gard Services
Members and Clients.

The article Discharge of oil
prohibited, which appeared in Gard
News issue No. 152 (December 1998/
February 1999) (also reproduced as
Gard Loss Prevention Circular 07-
01) warned against the implications
of pumping oil and oily bilge water
overboard, and was followed by
another article on the same topic in
Gard News issue No. 155 (September
1999/November 1999), titled Risk of oil
pollution versus vessels safety. The
present circular contains a summary
of that second article, which we hope
will assist Members and Clients in
staying vigilant in light of the potential
costs associated with an incident,
fines, port State detentions and the
safety implications related to oily water
separation and discharge.

Environmental and safety matters
During condition surveys of vessels,
the Association normally notes that
Masters and Chief Engineers enforce
a strict policy regarding pumping
of bilge water, in order to avoid any
oil spill. Port State control officers
inspect engine room pipelines and
oily water separating equipment to
ensure compliance with the MARPOL
regulations. Fines and detentions
are not popular. To guard against
accidentally pumping overboard engine
room bilge water which has not been
cleaned, shipside valves are sometimes
chained and padlocked or lines are
even blind flanged, all in an effort to
reduce the risk of an oil spill. At times,
such remedies are requested by port
State control officers, and are willingly
installed by the ships crew.
All efforts to avoid polluting the seas
and coastal areas are appreciated,
covered by Gard is the result of oily
water separation, overboard discharge
and oil record book anomalies. As
a result, Gard released two loss
prevention circulars on environmental
and safety concerns regarding oily
water separation (Loss Prevention
Circular 05-01 and 06-01). Please see
the Gard website at
www.gard.no for copies of these
circulars.
No. 06-01

of course, but it should be noted
that there is also an overriding issue
involved: the safety of the vessel in an
emergency situation. In case of water
ingress and flooding of the engine
room or the cargo holds, the vessel
needs a fully working and readily
operational bilge pumping system.
Therefore, the overboard connections
from the bilge pump should not be
blocked by locked hand wheels, blank
flanges or by removed spool pipes. It
should be noted that SOLAS, Chapter
II-1, Regulation 21, as well as relevant
Class rules, require a vessel to be
equipped with a bilge pumping system
that should be operational under all
practical conditions. In case of a sudden
flooding of the engine room, the bilge
pumping system must be able to be
started without undue delay.

So is there a problem in complying with
both MARPOL and SOLAS? Not really,
if one keeps in mind that the MARPOL
73/78 regulations are meant for non-
emergency operational situations. In
Annex I of MARPOL 73/78, Regulation
9 deals with the control of oil discharge
and Regulation 10 covers methods for
prevention of oil pollution from ships
within a special area, but Regulation 11
provides exceptions from both, in the
38
case of an emergency. The exceptions
under Regulation 11 are the following:
Regulation 9 and 10 shall not apply to:

Oily water separator
(a) the discharge into the sea of oil or
oily mixture necessary for the purpose
of securing the safety of a ship or saving
life at sea; or
(b) the discharge into the sea of oil or
oily mixture resulting from damage to a
ship or its equipment:
(i) provided that all reasonable
precautions have been taken after the
occurrence of the damage or discovery
of the discharge for the purpose of
preventing or minimising the discharge;
and
(ii) except if the owner or the master
acted either with intent to cause
damage, or recklessly and with
knowledge that damage would
probably result; or
(c) the discharge into the sea of
substances containing oil, approved
by the Administration, when being
used for the purpose of combating
specific pollution incidents in order to
minimise the damage from pollution.
Any such discharge shall be subject
to the approval of any Government in
whose jurisdiction it is contemplated
the discharge will occur.

In view of Regulation 11, MARPOL
and SOLAS are not in conflict with
each other and it is important that
all authorities inspecting a vessel for
compliance with MARPOL understand
this.
Blocking the overboard pipe from the
main bilge pumps should never be
done, as this would seriously affect
the safety of the vessel and would
be in conflict with SOLAS and Class
requirements. In the interest of the
coastal States, at times port State
control officers seem to pay more
attention to the MARPOL regulations
than to the corresponding SOLAS
regulations. A conflict of interest may
occur when the bilge pump of a vessel
is also used for ballast water and in
some cases even for emptying a sump
tank. Oil remains in the pipeline may
not be large in quantity, but will put
harbour authorities on full alert if
inadvertently pumped overboard with
ballast water. In some such cases port
State authorities have required blanks
inserted in the pipeline or the locking of
valve handles. This may secure against
oil pollution, but as pointed out, may
Oily water separator.
Overboard line for cleaned bilge
water from the oily water separator.
The hand wheel has been chain
locked by the vessels Chief Engineer
at the request of port State control
authorities. A seal has also been fitted
to the chain.
39
Overboard valve for main bilge/ballast line. The hand wheel has been tted
with a chain and padlock at the request of the port authorities. This is not
a good practice as the vessel's bilge pumping system is no longer readily
operational.
reduce the safety of the ship in an
emergency situation.
On the other hand, there should be
no excuse for pumping oil overboard
through pumps serving a dual purpose.
It should always be ensured that all
pipelines, whether used for clean
bilge or ballast water, are free from oil
contamination prior to using the bilge/
ballast pumps for direct overboard
discharge. Such verification should be
included in the operational procedures.

It should also always be clear to a
vessels crew that sludge tanks, waste
oil tanks and oil drain tanks are not
allowed to have any direct connection
overboard (MARPOL 37/78 Annex I,
Regulation 17(3)). and that the content
of such tanks must be discharged to
reception facilities ashore through
the standard discharge connection
required (MARPOL 37/78 Annex I,
Regulation 19), if not disposed of in
an incinerator on board. If required
by harbour authorities, pipelines from
such tanks may be closed off to prevent
oil pollution, but not the overboard
pipeline from the main bilge pump.

In case Members face conflicting
requirements from various authorities
concerning the issues addressed
above, they should always consult
the vessels Class Society, which has
approved the vessels bilge pumping
system and normally has also issued the
International Oil Pollution Prevention
Certificate. In any case, all changes to
a vessels bilge system should always
be informed in advance to the vessels
Class Society, for proper approval.
40
The finer points of oil
pollution
Fines are monetary impositions made
by a competent court, tribunal or
authority in respect of breach of,
or non-compliance with, any law or
regulation. Whether the fine is referred
to as administrative, civil or criminal,
all are penal in nature, irrespective of
the exact words used.
1
A penalty is
generally defined as punishment for
an offence, but given the level of fines
and attitude to their defence in some
countries, there is sometimes a feeling
that other motivations may exist.
Whilst a fine can also act as a necessary
and important deterrent, fairness is
sometimes brought into question
when it is apparent that certain cases
are being made examples of, perhaps
for political reasons and/or because
this is expected in an ever more
environmentally friendly world. Of
course, in some cases the authorities
take a fair and reasonable approach.
This approach, however, varies
enormously, irrespective of the facts of
a case. In a recent case, where there
was quite extensive oil pollution, a
harbour master imposed an on-the-spot
fine of a few thousand US dollars on
the Master.
2
In the US prosecutions are
often complicated and protracted,
3
with
large amounts involved. In Italy a legal
peculiarity permits payment of what
can best be described as a donation to
avoid prosecution.
P&I COVER
It is important to understand that
the Associations cover for fines is
strictly controlled, and in addition to
the limitations set out in the Statutes
and Rules,
4
a Members conduct is,
in each case, closely considered.
Clearly, there is an important duty on
any organisation not to condone or
encourage the breaking of laws, but
on the other hand, most pollution
incidents are not caused intentionally,
the majority result from human error.
5

STRICTER ATTITUDE
Oil pollution fines are no longer limited
to the offence of the spill itself, and
as will be discussed below, in some
jurisdictions fines now exist for failed
and/or late notification, and non
co-operation with the authorities. In
Factual and accurate reporting is very important.
Gard News 157,
March/May 2000
addition to this wider scope, pollution
fines have recently been the subject of
a stricter attitude in many countries.
In 1997 Greece increased its
maximum fine for polluting the marine
environment and breaching related
legislation to GRD 250 million (around
USD 738,400) in serious cases.
In September 1997 the UK increased
its maximum fine for the offence of
discharging an oily mixture into the sea
(which is unlimited if the case is referred
to a higher court) five fold from GBP
50,000. A recent case resulted in the
maximum level of GBP 250,000 being
imposed.
6
In 1997 the US imposed punitive
damages of USD 5 billion in respect
of the EXXON VALDEZ spill (currently
under appeal) and more recently
penalties of USD 9.5 million for a spill
off Rhode Island in January 1996.
More often than not, the fine itself is
only part of the actual cost involved.
Security demands to cover possible
41
prosecutions are now commonplace,
even for the smallest of spills, and
often owners are faced with non-
negotiable demands for cash security
or bank guarantees. Such demands
are particularly costly when they cause
the ship to be delayed. Delays can also
result from on board investigations by
the authorities, who have detention
powers available under national laws
and relevant international conventions.
There is also the cost of attending any
legal proceedings, which may involve
crew witnesses and invariably lawyers.
If the court imposes a fine, the guilty
party may also be faced with having to
pay the costs of the authority bringing
the prosecution. One should also not
forget the hidden cost of possible
adverse publicity.
Whilst the Association is always on hand
to give advice, and where appropriate,
assistance, a general guide is outlined
below as to what should be borne in
mind in terms of potential pollution
fines and when a spill occurs or is
alleged to have originated from an
owners vessel.
NOTIFICATION
No matter how small the spill, the
applicable and designated coast state
authorities must be notified at the
earliest opportunity.
7
Failed or late
reporting will often result in a larger
fine
8
and polluters can no longer
expect not to be caught. Increased
co-operation between states with
regard to surveillance
9
and improved
fingerprinting techniques are just
two of the factors involved in the
increased number of prosecutions
being witnessed world-wide. The
recent US case concerning the vessel
COMMAND illustrates the lengths the
US authorities are now prepared to go
to seek justice. After fingerprinting the
vessels oil to an illegal discharge in
San Francisco Bay in September 1998,
the vessel was pursued by a US aircraft
and Coast Guard cutter and boarded
in Panama. Penalties of USD 9.3 million
were subsequently imposed.
There is also the obligation on
ships and offshore units to report,
without delay, any observed event
at sea involving a discharge of oil or
the presence of oil.
10
It should be
noted that some legislation permits
prosecution of both the Master and
owner for failure to notify. This should
be borne in mind particularly by
Masters who might assume that their
owners would be carrying out the
notification (and vice-versa).
Factual and accurate reporting is
also very important, primarily so as to
avoid misleading the authorities and/
or potentially hampering any spill
response efforts. For example, it is often
found that the amount of oil spilt is
underestimated. There is also a danger
the authorities could infer that there is
an attempt to cover up the true amount
spilt. Care should also be taken to avoid
making admissions of responsibility/
liability, particularly in circumstances
such as collisions or bunkering, where
the source of the spill may be uncertain.
CO-OPERATION
Whilst genuine disagreement with the
authorities may arise, for example, as
to the source of the spill and response
methods employed, co-operation
should be extended as much as
possible. The authorities may also want
to investigate the cause of the spill and
again co-operation should be afforded.
Depending on the circumstances it
may be advisable to arrange legal
representation for the owner and/
or Master/crew. Guidance should be
sought from the Association via the
local correspondent.
The US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA
90)
11
expressly provides for fines in
respect of the failure to co-operate, and
in most other states one could expect
a larger fine in case of such failure. The
appointment of a marine surveyor or
spill expert (as the case warrants), with
local knowledge and contacts, will
likely be of assistance in resolving any
disagreement, but if this assistance
is not available it may be advisable
(depending on the circumstances) to
limit action to issuing a protest, so as to
avoid hampering the response efforts.
OWN INVESTIGATION AND
EVIDENCE
The appointment of a surveyor/expert
should be considered to assist in
investigating and gathering information
at the scene (such an appointment
may be inevitable, for example, to
explain technical aspects in court).
Even if the spill is small, the cost
involved is far outweighed by the risk
of not obtaining contemporaneous
evidence. Such evidence can be vital
if it becomes necessary to challenge
the evidence of the authorities and to
support any defences or mitigating
arguments available (see below). One
will also appreciate that, following a
spill, the Master and crew will likely
have many other and often more
important things to do than collecting
evidence. Inevitably, however, there
will be occasions when a surveyor
can not attend before evidence may
be lost, particularly, for instance,
when the vessel spills at sea. In such
circumstances the Master and his crew
have to act themselves (nothing should
pre-empt safety and environmental
concerns) and in view of this, the sort of
information required is outlined below.
Some of this information should form
part of the vessels standard reporting
requirements.
(1) An estimation of the amount of oil
spilled.
(2) The type of oil spilled.
(3) The date and time the spill occurred
or was first reported on board (and by
whom).
(4) The position of the spill (e.g.,
latitude and longitude, berth, etc.).
(5) Details of whom the spill was notified
to, by whom, when and with what
information.
(6) A description of any slicks (e.g.,
direction of movement, length, breadth
and appearance) against time.
(7) Details of any alleged/reported/
observed pollution damage.
(8) Details of any risks of pollution
damage (e.g., to beaches, marinas,
etc.).
(9) Details of response and clean-up
measures.
(10) Details of weather and tide/current.
(11) Details of initial investigations into
source and cause.
If the source of the spill is not certain,
properly labelled and sealed samples
of all oils on board and of the spilled
oil should be retained for future
comparative analysis. Depending on
the circumstances, it may be advisable
to have an independent surveyor obtain
these samples in the presence of the
state authority representative, so as to
avoid disputes regarding credibility.
Details of other possible spill sources
in the vicinity may also be valuable and
a record should be made of the type,
position, movements, and work of the
object observed against time.
To support the information mentioned
above, it is important to retain relevant
documentary evidence, e.g., ullage/
sounding and maintenance records.
Photographic and/or video records will
also be of significant value.
42
OIL RECORD BOOKS
It is perhaps worth mentioning here
that on numerous occasions during the
investigation into a spill, the vessels
log and record books have been found
to be incomplete and/or wrong. Being
one of the first items to be inspected
by the authorities, the Oil Record
Book (ORB),
12
is a particular source
of errors and omissions. This book
is a requirement of the International
Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (Marpol) 1973 (as
amended), which most maritime states
are parties to.
13
Most of these states are
aware that, under the convention, they
have the power to take penal action for
any failure to keep the Oil Record Book
up to date and accurate. More often
than not fines are imposed, sometimes
against both the Master and owner, and
in many states these are by no means
small.
14
LETTERS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Letters of responsibility should not be
confused with letters of undertaking,
which are offered for the purpose
of security. A letter of responsibility
is usually sought to obtain at least
an admission of liability. Letters of
responsibility are becoming a usual
requirement of many authorities
before releasing the ship/crew, and it
is advisable to consult the Association
or its correspondents before any
signature is added. If the Association
is not consulted, potentially damaging
admissions may be made. In some
circumstances even the most innocent
remark can be misconstrued and it
may be very difficult to overcome this
at a later date. The same applies to
reports made pursuant to internal
investigations into a pollution incident.
Copies of such reports are often
requested by authorities to assist in
their investigations, and if these are
not disclosed because they contain
potentially damaging information,
adverse inferences may be drawn.
THE PROSECUTION PROCESS
If an owner is invited to an interview
or to assist an authority with its
investigations, or if a notification of a
prosecution is received, it is advisable
to contact the Association and seek
immediate legal advice. It may be
that the legislation under which the
prosecution is being brought is not
applicable or that other more lenient
legislation is applicable. As previously
mentioned, defences are available, and
in some cases action may be limited
to issuing a formal warning - this was
achieved in a recent case handled
by the Association in the UK and
the Members proper investigation,
co-operation and honesty were key
factors. Fines can often be reduced if
there are good arguments in mitigation,
and if claimed costs can be shown
to be unreasonable - it has been
known for some authorities to try and
recover some costs which are arguably
not directly attributable to the spill,
like for example the whole cost of a
surveillance aircrafts routine flight.
The amount of the fine usually depends
on a number of factors, such as the
1 See pages 442 and 443 of the Gard Handbook on P&I Insurance.
2 The case was featured in Gard News issue No. 154 in the article P&I incidents - Bunkering - How not to do it.
3 See for instance P&I incidents - The criminal aspect of oil spills in the US in Gard News issue No. 155.
4 Rule 47 has recently been amended and is effective as of 20th February 2000. Under paragraph 1c, the Association shall cover ...fines imposed upon
the Member in respect of the accidental escape or discharge of oil or any other substance, provided that the Member is insured for pollution liability by
the Association under Rule 38, and subject to the applicable limit of liability under the P&I entry in respect of oil pollution risk. Under paragraph 2c the
Association may, in its sole discretion, cover whole or in part ...any fine imposed not upon the Member but the master or Crew member of the Ship or
on any other servant or agent of the Member or on any other party, provided that the Member has been compelled by law to pay or reimburse such a
fine or that the Association determines that it was reasonable for the Member to have paid or reimbursed the same.
5 The International Maritime Organization estimates that 90 per cent of pollution incidents are due to human error, the remaining 10 per cent generally
considered to be due to some type of technical or mechanical fault. For further information see Gards Handbook on Marine Pollution, Second Edition,
pages 255 onwards.
6 The fine was reduced on appeal to GBP 25,000.
7 This information should be contained in the vessels Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) or equivalent emergency response
documentation and checks should be made to ensure that the information is correct and up to date.
8 Section 4301 of the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 expressly states that an organisation can be fined up to USD 500,000 and an individual up to USD
250,000 for such a failure.
9 Surveillance aircraft now use specialist radar equipment, which enables them to detect oily mixtures on the sea surface at night.
10 Article 4 of the Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-Operation Convention 1990.
11 Section 4301.
12 The ORB must be provided for ships over 400 GT and above and for oil tankers of 150 GT and above. The book has two parts: part I deals with
machinery space operations and part II deals with cargo and ballast operations and need only be carried on oil tankers. The book lists various
operations (e.g., the discharge of bilges), the details of which must be recorded against the signature of an officer. The Master also signs each
completed page of the book.
13 The main part of Marpol 73/78, which includes the ORB requirements under Annex 1, has been accepted by 100 states, accounting for approximately
93 per cent of the worlds gross tonnage. For further information see Gards Handbook on Marine Pollution, Second Edition, pages 98 onwards.
14 It should be noted that Rule 47.2.b.vi of the Associations Statutes and Rules excludes cover for fines resulting from the non-compliance with the
provisions of Marpol.
15 The attitude of the UK authorities appears to be that a ships Master would usually only be prosecuted if the offence arose from the Masters personal
fault or negligence and if the Master was acting against the owners instructions.
size of the spill, the type of oil spilled,
the environmental sensitivity of the
area, the effects of the spill (e.g.,
environmental/property damage
and economic impact), co-operation
with authorities, previous offences/
spills, investigative efforts, steps taken
to prevent re-occurrence, financial
hardship, response and clean-up
measures, and whether a guilty or not
guilty plea is made. Hopefully, there will
be a number of these factors, which can
be relied upon as mitigation. Exposure
may also be reduced, in cases where
the owner and Master are prosecuted,
if the authorities can be persuaded
to drop their prosecution against the
Master.
15
To conclude, it is now the case that,
with more fines being pursued, more
vigorously, and for increasing amounts,
an alleged polluter can no longer run
the risk of not being caught and/or
not being prepared for prosecution.
No matter how small the spill or how
confident owners may be that they
are not to blame, the above steps
should be considered. Whilst in some
instances the authorities may appear
unconcerned, this does not mean they
will not pursue a fine when the ship, or
her sister, next visits the port.
43
US Coast Guard formal policy
on voluntary disclosure of
MARPOL violations
A formal policy on voluntary disclosure
of MARPOL violations has been issued
by the United States Coast Guard.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG)
has issued a formal policy on voluntary
disclosure which applies to MARPOL
violations that may result in prosecution
of owners and operators of foreign
flag vessels in the United States. The
policy is similar to existing policies
of other US government agencies,
including the US Justice Department,
in describing the factors that will be
considered in evaluating a violation
for possible criminal investigation or
prosecution. These policies require
that companies have in place a
compliance management system to
prevent, detect and correct violations
of environmental regulations. The
Shipping Industry Guidance on
Environmental Compliance, published
by ICS/ISF,
1
would appear to address
all of the requirements for a compliance
management system as contemplated
by the USCG policy.
If a company promptly and voluntarily
discloses a violation to the USCG
discovered within the companys
environmental compliance plan,
including ship audits, and the disclosure
otherwise meets the requirement of the
USCG policy, the USCG may exercise
discretion not to recommend to the US
Justice Department prosecution of the
company. The policy does not apply if
there is a pattern of prior violations, or
if the violation would likely have been
discovered by the USCG. The full policy
document can be found at www.uscg.
mil/foia/docs/CH-4%20Appendix%20V.
pdf.
Recall that under US law foreign flag
shipowners and operators can be and
often are prosecuted for entry into US
waters with a false oil record book that
conceals discharges of oily wastes that
have taken place outside US waters.
Discharges in violation of MARPOL
in international waters are violations
that are subject to the law of the flag
state but the United States does not
have jurisdiction to prosecute foreign
flag operators for the discharge itself
because the vessels were outside US
waters at the time of the discharge.
According to the Industry Guidance
on Environmental Compliance,
non-compliance with MARPOL
regulations should be reported to
the vessels flag administration. In the
event of the discovery of evidence of
intentional discharges of waste, the
flag administration must be notified
immediately and a request for an
investigation should be initiated.
If the vessel trades to the United
States, the vessel owner or operator
may, in addition to the flag state, also
consider reporting the discovery and
the correction of any false entries in the
oil record book to the USCG in order
to comply with the voluntary disclosure
policy. In deciding whether to report to
the USCG, prudence suggests foreign
flag owners and operators should
seek immediate legal advice from a
lawyer familiar with the USCG and
Justice Department policy guidelines
and MARPOL criminal prosecutions in
general.
Gards Loss Prevention Circular No. 13-
07, which can be found at www.gard.no,
contains details of the policy.
1 See article ICS/ISF guidance on
environmental compliance above.
Gard News 189,
44
Oily water separator
bypass in the US - The
tables are turned
US Coast Guard prosecutes one of
its own staff for alleged oily water
separator bypass.
For some time now the shipping
press has contained cautionary
stories of the ferocity with which the
authorities in the US pursue shipping
companies, usually foreign companies
and their employees, for alleged oily
water separator bypasses. Usually,
the accused is faced with a range of
allegations, the main one often being
the entry of false information in the
vessels oil record book. If the alleged
discharge overboard has taken place
outside US waters, the vessel can not
be prosecuted for that act under US
law, but it can be prosecuted under
MARPOL. Flag states are responsible
for prosecuting MARPOL violations.
However, the situation is different
when the alleged discharge overboard
is said to have happened inside US
waters. In such circumstances, the
full weight of the US legal system can
be brought to bear on the accused.
Somewhat embarrassingly for the Coast
Guard, one of their own seafarers is
facing allegations that he knew of and
authorised the direct discharge (i.e.,
not through the oily water separator) of
bilge waste overboard into Honolulu
harbour.
The individual in question was a
Main Propulsion Assistant (MPA)
presumably an engineer aboard a
USCG cutter. It seems that some of his
shipmates complained (anonymously)
that they had been ordered by the
MPA to pump into the harbour
approximately 2,000 gallons of bilge
waste without using the oily water
separator (OWS). In May 2006, the
complaint was investigated by the US
authorities. They interviewed engineer
colleagues of the MPA, who stated that
they had taken part in the operation
described above. Evidence was also
obtained that untreated bilge water
had been discharged overboard on ten
previous occasions, when the vessel was
off Central and South America.
It is understood that the MPA initially
denied the allegations, but later
confessed that he had been aware of
what was going on, but had turned
a blind eye to it. The MPA has been
indicted on charges of obstruction of
Gard News 189,
justice and making a false statement
in connection with the release of oily
bilge water into Honolulu Harbour. If
convicted, he faces a sentence of up
to five years in prison on each count. It
is understood that the investigation is
continuing and that, depending on its
outcome, the MPA could face further
charges from federal and the State of
Hawaii authorities, fines and/or lawsuits.
It seems that, as his employer, the Coast
Guard itself may also face charges, fines
and/or lawsuits.
There are many who feel that the
US authorities are over-zealous and
punitive in their pursuit and treatment
of seafarers accused of bypassing
the OWS and it is not known whether
the MPA was taken from the vessel
in handcuffs and escorted by armed
officers, but it would, at least, appear
that they do not have one rule for their
own people and one rule for everyone
else.
45
US law - MARPOL
violations in the US
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rules
in favour of a seaman in a prosecution
for MARPOL violations.
On 18th August 2006 the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued its decision in the case of United
States of America v. Noel Abrogar.1
This was the first time an appellate
court has considered the sentence of a
foreign seaman convicted of violations
Ships (APPS), the United States version
of the MARPOL Convention.
Mr Abrogar, a citizen of the Philippines,
served as chief engineer aboard the
MAGELLAN PHOENIX, a Panamanian-
flag vessel. Mr Abrogar admitted by
plea agreement that he knew that those
under his command had on occasion
discharged oily water direct to the
sea and he admitted he made false
entries in the vessel oil record book
to conceal the violations. Following
the plea agreement a district court
judge sentenced Mr Abrogar to serve
one year and a day in federal prison
for failure to maintain an accurate oil
record book, a crime under APPS.
Those convicted in the federal courts of
the United States are sentenced to fines
and imprisonment according to Federal
Sentencing Guidelines that assign
points to certain types of conduct for
the purpose of guiding the sentencing
judges. Here the conduct that provided
enhancement was the ongoing,
continuous or repetitive discharge,
release or emission of a pollutant into
the environment.
Mr Abrogars counsel appealed the
sentence on the ground that the district
court had improperly enhanced the
criminal penalty based on governments
assertion that a six-point enhancement
should be applied for the acts of
discharge that had occurred in
international waters. Mr Abrogar argued
on appeal that the enhancement should
not be applied since the discharges,
while clearly MARPOL violations, were
not violations of US law.
In analysing the scope of MARPOL
and APPS, the court found that
Congress did not make every violation
of MARPOL by every person a crime
under US law. To the contrary, under
APPS Congress and the Coast Guard
created criminal liability for foreign
vessels and personnel only for those
substantive violations of MARPOL that
occur in US ports or waters. Stated
differently, a MARPOL violation is only
an offence under US law if that violation
occurs within the boundaries of US
waters or within a US port.
The Third Circuit held that the district
court could not consider the MARPOL
violations that occurred outside US
waters in its sentence calculation
because these were not offences under
US law and the acts were not conduct
relevant to Mr Abrogars failure to
maintain the oil record book while in
US waters. Hence the court determined
that the sentence as imposed was
too harsh and sent the case back to
the district court for re-sentencing. It
should, however, be noted that implied
in the courts ruling is the recognition
that, as soon as a foreign-flagged vessel
with a faulty Oil Record Book crosses
into US waters, an APPS violation has
occurred, even though the entries were
made outside US waters.
The decision is important to seamen
charged with or facing charges in the
US for MARPOL violations. The decision
must be followed by the district courts
in the Third Circuit and is persuasive
authority for the other federal courts.2
The Third Circuit decision should not be
read as implying that seamen and non-
US flag shipowners can avoid penalties
simply by correctly recording illegal
discharges in the oil record book.3 Flag
states do have jurisdiction to punish
MARPOL violations in international
waters and are increasingly likely
to impose hefty fines for deliberate
discharges.
1 Case No: 06-125 (3d Cir.) decided 18th
August 2006, not yet reported. The full
text of the decision is available at www.
ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061215p.
pdf.
2 There are 11 numbered federal
appellate courts plus the District of
Columbia (Washington D.C.). The Third
Circuit takes appeals from the district
courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Delaware and the US Virgin Islands.
3 Those vessels flying the US flag are
subject to jurisdiction under APPS for
violations within international waters as
well as US ports and coastal waters.
Gard News 184,
46
Environmental crime -
Oily water discharge off
the East Coast of Canada
Introduction
The Government of Canada recently
increased its commitment to the
protection of wildlife and the
environment on the Canadian east
coast through increased surveillance
of vessels entering Canadian waters
and illegally discharging oily water.
The discharge of oily water is of
particular concern during the months of
November to January when migratory
birds, who are especially susceptible
to these oily water discharges, are in
Canadian east coast waters.
Recent incidents have shown that
shipowners and ship managers
should continue to take considerable
precautions to prevent non-accidental
discharges of oily water. Pollution fines
for hundreds of thousands of Canadian
dollars have been handed down.
The problem
The illegal discharge of oily water in
non-compliance with MARPOL 73/78
is a problem that continues to concern
the maritime industry. The problem
tends to be particularly acute off of
the coast of eastern Canada during
the months of November to January.
Many vessels transit closer to shore to
take advantage of the ice covers that
form during the winter. The discharge
of oil has had a significant impact on
migratory birds that transit through
the area during the winter months. It
is estimated that as many as 300,000
seabirds are killed on the Canadian
Atlantic east coast annually. Such
devastation has led the Canadian
authorities to focus their attention
and resources on prevention of such
incidents and the prosecution of
violators.
Canadian response to this problem
The Canadian authorities have
enhanced their monitoring of vessels
through the use of surveillance and
ship-traffic monitoring to catch
violators. This includes both air
and sea surveillance, and satellite
technology. For example, recent
satellite technology such as RADARSAT
has improved marine surveillance by
the use of Synthetic Aperture Radar.
This radar can pierce cloud cover both
day and night. In addition, significant
fines are being handed down to
violators caught discharging oily water
in Canadian territorial waters.
Recommendations
Oily water separation related
problems and associated fines can
create significant problems for both
seafarers and companies. Therefore,
please consider the following
recommendations:
Gard Service Protection and
Indemnity cover, like that of all
Clubs in the International Group,
is a named risk cover. The risks
covered are set out in Gard
P&Is Statutes and Rules. Gards
Rule 38 Pollution expressly
excludes pollution fines. Gards
Rule 47 Fines covers fines
and penalties imposed upon a
Member by any court, tribunal
or other authority of competent
jurisdiction, for or in respect
of the accidental escape or
discharge of oil.

The oily water separator installed
on board must be of an approved
type and function properly.
The oil content meter, the
monitoring device and the alarm/
automatic-stopping device must
function correctly.
Reduce the oil leakages to the
bilges by collecting oil in drip
trays and gutters draining into
a waste oil tank. Ensure that the
drain pipes from the gutters are
not clogged by deposits or rags.
It is, therefore, important that
crew does not leave rags or other
material in drip trays and gutters.
Oil sludge from engine rooms
must not to be pumped
overboard. If not disposed of in
an incinerator, the oil must remain
on board until discharged to
shore-based reception facilities.
Accurately record all information
required to be entered in the
Oil Record Book. All handling
of waste oil must be recorded,
including quantities sent for
incineration to shoreside
reception facilities, and to sludge
tank through separation. If any
equipment is not operating
correctly, such information
must be recorded and proper
precautions taken to prevent
discharge. Oil Record Books are
routinely inspected by port State
control authorities. Detention
of the vessel and/or fines may
result if the Oil Record Book is
incomplete or has been tampered
with.
For more information, guidance
and recommendations on oily water
separation related issues, please refer
to Gard Services Loss Prevention
Circular 05-02, Environmental Crimes
Myth or reality?, Loss Prevention
Circular 06-01, Oily water separation
and discharge: Risk of oil pollution
versus vessels safety, and Loss
Prevention Circular 07-01, Oily water
separation and discharge: Discharge of
oil prohibited. For more information on
the impact of oil discharge in Canadian
waters, please see the World Wildlife
Fund report Seabirds and Atlantic
Canadas Ship-Source Oil Pollution at
the following website address:
www.wwf.ca/en/news_room/
pdf/02_09_24_seabirdsreport.pdf.
No. 14-02
47
Pollution - The hard line taken
by the French criminal courts
on oil discharge from ships
By Oliver Purcell and Guillaume Brajeux, Holman Fenwick & Willan (Paris)
There has recently been considerable
press coverage of the attitude adopted
by French prosecutors in relation to
oil discharge from ships, and reports
of increasing fines ordered by French
criminal courts.
Introduction
Whilst the law has recently changed,
and in particular has significantly
increased the level of fines which can
be awarded by the courts, the principal
change is probably in the attitude
adopted by French prosecutors, who
are now applying powers which they
have arguably always had.
The change in attitude results
from growing public interest in
environmental issues, and from
increasing public discontent with
marine pollution. Recent casualties,
such as the ERIKA and the PRESTIGE,
have not only generated public
outrage, but finally caused politicians to
take certain measures.
New approach
The recent changes in the law which
have generated the most interest from
the press do not concern oil pollution
resulting from casualties (such as those
mentioned above), but rather pollution
resulting from the discharge of oil
or oily residues from ships, whether
voluntary or accidental (but unrelated
to a marine casualty). The French
authorities have been relatively slow in
taking effective measures to deal with
such pollution; they are in effect now
trying to catch up for time previously
lost.
The manner of achieving this has been
twofold:
1. By tinkering with jurisdictional rules,
greater responsibility has been given
to local prosecutors in Le Havre (for the
There is growing public interest in environmental issues in France.
English Channel), Brest (for the Atlantic),
and Marseille (for the Mediterranean),
who are now using all their powers, in
particular that of detaining ships. This
has proved to be a much more effective
way of securing the payment of fines,
and provides publicity intended both
to demonstrate to the public that
government policy is being applied,
and to deter the shipping community
from causing pollution in French waters.
2. Maximum fines have been
considerably increased. The categories
of persons who may be found liable to
pay the fine have also been broadened
to include ship operators and the
real or effective owner or manager
of a vessel; however, the courts have to
date not had to apply these changes,
intended to facilitate payment of the
fine, wherever a ship has been detained
and an owner has paid cash into court
in order to secure payment of the fine.
Gard News 176,
48
Power over EEZ
Frances power to exercise control over
not only its territorial waters but also
over its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)1
results both from the 1982 Convention
on the Law of the Sea and from
MARPOL Conventions.
Pursuant to the Convention on the Law
of the Sea, a state has jurisdiction over
both its territorial waters and its EEZ, for
certain purposes. Pursuant to article 4(2)
of MARPOL:
Any violation of the requirements
of the present convention within
the jurisdiction of any Party to the
Convention shall be prohibited and
sanctions shall be established therefor
under the law of that party.
Whenever such violation occurs, the
party shall either:
(a) cause proceedings to be taken in
accordance with its law; or
(b) furnish to the Administration of the
ship such information and evidence as
may be in its possession that a violation
has occurred. (our emphasis)
Thus pursuant to international
conventions, the French courts and
criminal prosecution authorities are
entitled (and even obliged) to ensure
compliance with international rules on
the prevention of oil pollution within
their jurisdiction, which includes for
these purposes Frances EEZ.
Prohibition
The basic rule under Rule 9 of MARPOL
is as follows:
... any discharge into the sea of oil
or oily mixtures from ships to which
this Annex applies shall be prohibited
except where all the following
conditions are satisfied: ...
(b) from a ship of 400 gross tonnage
and above ...
(i) the ship is not within a special area;
(ii) the ship is proceeding en route;
(iii) the oil content of the effluent does
not exceed 15 parts per million (ppm);
and
(iv) the ship has in operation equipment
as required by Regulation 16 ...
Regulation 10 of MARPOL specifies
that, within special areas, any discharge
is prohibited; as far as France is
concerned, these special areas are the
Mediterranean and the English Channel
and its approaches.
Outside special areas, only discharge
not exceeding 15ppm is authorised,
provided the ship is operating
equipment which complies with
Regulation 16; the latter is oil filtering
equipment (oily water separator)
which will ensure that any oily mixture
discharged into the sea after passing
through the system has an oil content
not exceeding 15ppm.
Increased surveillance
Whilst some pollution cases have
occurred in the Mediterranean, the vast
majority have arisen in the Atlantic,
usually midway along a line drawn
between Finisterre (in Spain) and
Ouessant (in Brittany); this is one of
the principal routes for all sea traffic to
or from Northern Europe, and is well
within Frances EEZ. This is the main
area patrolled on a regular basis by
French Customs aircraft, although Navy
aircraft or other authorities also patrol
the area, and have similar powers.
The Customs officer or other authorities
on board these aircraft will follow what
they consider to be slicks or traces of
oil. If they locate a vessel which they
consider to be the cause or origin of
pollution, they will contact such vessel,
inform the master of the fact that his
vessel appears to be discharging oil or
oily residues, and seek information on
the vessel and her future destination.
Response
If a vessel is contacted or spots a
Customs or Navy aircraft in the vicinity,
a number of practical steps may be
taken:
The master and chief engineer should
check that the oily water separator
equipment is functioning correctly;
If the vessel is operating its oily
water separator, and this is functioning
properly (and thus discharge is less
than 15ppm), the vessel should not
stop discharging when the aircraft flies
overhead;
The master should respond
immediately to any VHF call;
The master should ask for a
thermographic image and/or for
samples of any alleged slick to be
taken;
The master should encourage the
authorities to come on board at the
next port of call;
Nothing should be modified in the
engine room;
The owners or managers should
compile evidence that the vessel
regularly uses discharging facilities in
ports;
The owners or managers should
arrange for a joint survey of the vessel
with the authorities at the next port.
Evidence
The authorities will invariably also take
photographs. These photographs,
together with the official report drawn
up by the officer on duty, will constitute
the principal (and often exclusive)
evidence upon which the prosecution
will rely to pursue a criminal action
against a master.
Under article L218-28 of the French
Environment Code, reports prepared
by certain sworn officers of the state,
including Customs agents, constitute
proof of the events related therein
until such time as their contents are
disproved. This provision in effect
reverses the burden of proof which
normally applies in criminal matters; as
a result of this provision, the accused
has the burden of proving that the
vessel was not polluting, rather than the
reverse.
The prosecution may also rely on other
evidence, for example that there were
no other vessels in the vicinity, that
discharge seemed to stop as soon as
the Customs aircraft flew overhead,
or that the Oil Record Book is not
properly kept (this list is obviously
not exhaustive). Nevertheless, it is
essentially the official report prepared
by Customs, together with the
photographs taken, which form the
main evidence on which French criminal
courts have found vessels to be guilty
of breaches of the relevant MARPOL
regulations.
The photographs taken are quite often
of poor or questionable quality; this
has not, however, prevented the French
courts from considering such evidence
to be sufficient for a finding of guilt. The
reason for this is that the majority view
of experts who attended discussions
which led to the signing of the Bonn
Agreement2 considered that residues
with less than 15ppm oil content would
not be visible from the sky, whereas
residues with an oil content in excess
of 15ppm would be visible. This simple
but relatively arbitrary approach has
convinced a number of courts that
the evidence before them showed oil
pollution, rather than simply showing
the trace left by the wake of a vessel or
other natural phenomena such as the
effect of wind on the waters surface.
Detention
Prosecutors have also now taken the
initiative of ordering vessels suspected
by Customs officers to be polluting
to deviate to the nearest French port.
Pursuant to article L218-30 of the
Environment Code, prosecutors have
this power, and may require payment
into court (to secure payment of the
future fine, the presence of the master
at the criminal action and payment of
any damages awarded to civil claimants)
before allowing the vessel to sail. The
level of security required by prosecutors
is often indicative of the level of fine
which they may seek from the courts.
Increased fines
The Perben 2 law,3 which came into
force in March 2004, increased the
49
potential fine to EUR 1 million, or the
value of the vessel, or four times the
value of cargo on board and freight.
To date, the maximum reported fine
ever ordered has amounted to EUR
500,000; however, further increases can
be expected.
The new provisions have also extended
the categories of persons who may
be ordered to pay the fine, to include
an owner, operator, or the effective
owner or manager of a vessel. Whilst
the trend had been for owners to be
joined as co-accused, this practice may
disappear if prosecutors systematically
detain vessels to obtain security for
payment of the fine. In this respect, it
should be remembered that a vessel
may be detained as the instrument
of the alleged offence, irrespective
of the person or entity which may
subsequently be pursued.
Whilst other methods of enforcement
are available once a judgment has been
rendered, it appears that the future
practice will be for prosecutors to take
the preventive measure of ordering
a vessel into the nearest French port.
Failure to comply with such orders from
the French authorities exposes a master
(and in certain circumstances owners) to
an additional fine.
Two additional points should be
mentioned:
We have considered above the most
common cases, namely oil discharge
within Frances EEZ, and the fines
which are payable. If discharge occurs
within Frances territorial waters, a
foreign master will also face the risk of
imprisonment (French masters face this
risk even in Frances EEZ).
Other interested parties, such as
environmental associations, may join
in the criminal action as civil claimants.
The damages which they are usually
awarded remain for the time being
relatively modest, but are likely to
increase in the future. The court in
Marseille has very recently awarded
EUR 18,000 to each such claimant.
1 200 nautical miles from base lines as defned by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay.
2 Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances, 1983.
3 A French law on organised crime and delinquency, named after the French justice minister, Dominique Perben.
Conclusion
It should be borne in mind that
President Chirac has made the fight
against oil pollution one of the three
priorities of his presidency. The above
changes in approach reflect this shift
in policy, and ship owners or operators
can expect that ever-increasing levels
of fines will be sought by prosecutors.
Courts should, however, be encouraged
to take a more balanced or better
informed view of all the evidence
available; for the time being, however,
acquittals remain rare. Caution must
therefore be exercised.
Lingard Limited
Trott & Duncan Building
17A Brunswick Street
Hamilton HM 10
Bermuda
Tel +1 441 292 6766
Email companymail@lingard.bm
Gard AS
P.O. Box 789 Stoa
NO-4809 Arendal
Norway
Tel +47 37 01 91 00
Email companymail@gard.no
Gard AS
Skipsbyggerhallen
Solheimsgaten 11
NO-5058 Bergen
Norway
Tel +47 37 01 91 00
Gard AS
Stperigt 2, Aker Brygge
NO-0250 Oslo
Norway
Tel +47 37 01 91 00
Oy Gard (Baltic) Ab
Bulevardi 46
FIN-00120 Helsinki
Finland
Tel +358 30 600 3400
Email gardbaltic@gard.no
Gard (Greece) Ltd
2, A. Papanastasiou Avenue
185 34 Kastella, Piraeus
Greece
Tel + 30 210 413 8752
Email gard.greece@gard.no
Gard (HK) Ltd
Room 3505, 35F
The Centrium, 60 Wyndham Street
Central
Hong Kong
Tel +852 2901 8688
Email gardhk@gard.no
Gard (Japan) K.K.
Kawade Building, 5F
1-5-8 Nishi-Shinbashi
Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0003
Japan
Tel +81 (0)3 3503 9291
Email gardjapan@gard.no
Gard (Japan) K.K.
Vogue 406,
3-9-36 Higashimura, Imabari-City,
Ehime 799-1506,
Japan
Tel +81 898 35 3901
Email gardjapan@gard.no
Gard (North America) Inc.
40 Fulton Street
New York, NY 10038
USA
Tel +1 212 425 5100
Email gardna@gard.no
Gard (Sweden) AB
Vstra Hamngatan 5
SE-41117 Gothenburg
Sweden
Tel +46 (0)31 743 7130
Email gardsweden@gard.no
Gard (UK) Limited
85 Gracechurch Street
London EC3V 0AA
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)20 7444 7200
Email garduk@gard.no
Gard Marine & Energy- Escritrio de
Representao no Brasil Ltda
Rua Lauro Muller 116 Suite 2405
Botafogo, 22290-160,
Rio de Janeiro, RJ,
Brazil
Tel +55 (21) 3544-0046
Email gardbrasil@gard.no
Emergency Telephone Number
+47 90 52 41 00
www.gard.no
CONTACT DETAILS FOR GARDS GLOBAL NETWORK

Pollution by Oil December 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pollution by Oil December 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prevention of

) and incinerator logs are

You might also like